Sony KDL-40EX503 or KDL-46EX503?

[admin_exported]

I'm looking to get a new TV and initially had it in mind to get a 42". The best reviews I found were for the Panasonic TX-P42G20B, but I've read that the black levels tend to deteriorate over time, and I'm still abit concerned about image retention on plasmas.

I then saw the Sony KDL-40EX503 which has got great reviews everywhere I've seen. The only slight issue is that it's a couple of inches smaller than what I wanted, but to be honest, I don't think it'd be very noticeable.

After looking around some more I realised that this TV was also available in a 46" which got me thinking that might be a better option, and the viewing distance in my lounge is ideal for a screen size of 42"-46".

My only worry is that the picture quality on the 46" might not be as good as the 40" version. How much of a possibility is this? I can't seem to find any reviews of the 46" version either which doesn't help!

 

[Anonymous]

looks like your in the same boat as me really, no reviews for these sizes. Just to let you know from what ive read the g20 doesnt suffer image retention

 

[davejberry]

I still have a 42 inch Panny that I bought in 2003 when such sets were 3000 pounds and only 640 x 480 lines. It has never had a problem with image retention or lessening black levels. I still think it gives a more natural picture than my current Sony. In my opinion it's also better for fast motion and doesn't suffer that annoying off centre back light bleed (milky picture)

Although the Sony does have a good picture, I really wish I'd saved the extra 200 euros and bought a Panny plasma instead :-(

 

[Anonymous]

I'd say 46'' is 2 years ago's 42''. 40'' is now a small / medium set, and you will almost certainly wish you had the 46'' if you dont make the right call, you'll see pixelation if you are too close (less than 10ft) but from 12ft + it'll be perfect

I have 42'' and it was fine 3 years ago - for me it has to be a 50'' now, I sit 13ft from the set. Even my wife says we need bigger

 

[Anonymous]

Size does matter

 

[Anonymous]

ramzijw:looks like your in the same boat as me really, no reviews for these sizes. Just to let you know from what ive read the g20 doesnt suffer image retention

Thanks. Yeh, it's a difficult decision to make. It's strange that there aren't any reviews though!

 

[Anonymous]

davejberry:
I still have a 42 inch Panny that I bought in 2003 when such sets were 3000 pounds and only 640 x 480 lines. It has never had a problem with image retention or lessening black levels. I still think it gives a more natural picture than my current Sony. In my opinion it's also better for fast motion and doesn't suffer that annoying off centre back light bleed (milky picture)

Although the Sony does have a good picture, I really wish I'd saved the extra 200 euros and bought a Panny plasma instead :-(

How old is your Sony 46"? Are you happy with it overall?

 

[davejberry]

cymruoasis:davejberry:
I still have a 42 inch Panny that I bought in 2003 when such sets were 3000 pounds and only 640 x 480 lines. It has never had a problem with image retention or lessening black levels. I still think it gives a more natural picture than my current Sony. In my opinion it's also better for fast motion and doesn't suffer that annoying off centre back light bleed (milky picture)

Although the Sony does have a good picture, I really wish I'd saved the extra 200 euros and bought a Panny plasma instead :-(

How old is your Sony 46"? Are you happy with it overall?

Don't get me wrong, the Sony is a good telly. The picture is very good for a set from 2008. I bought it as it was cheaper than the Pannys at the time (its all expensive in Spain) and I wanted to go HD. It's just that I rushed into it.

In my opinion, Plasmas are better than LCDs. I like the plasma picture better than LCD, the wider viewing angle and for me, the better motion. (i have an eye condition that makes me notice judder less on plasmas). The other issue is that the Sony has developed an annoying lighter line down the screen which you can see in a darkened room (fogging or backlight irregularities) - an issue that plagued recent Sony LCDs that I wasn't aware of when I bought it.

 

[Anonymous]

davejberry:cymruoasis:davejberry:
I still have a 42 inch Panny that I bought in 2003 when such sets were 3000 pounds and only 640 x 480 lines. It has never had a problem with image retention or lessening black levels. I still think it gives a more natural picture than my current Sony. In my opinion it's also better for fast motion and doesn't suffer that annoying off centre back light bleed (milky picture)

Although the Sony does have a good picture, I really wish I'd saved the extra 200 euros and bought a Panny plasma instead :-(

How old is your Sony 46"? Are you happy with it overall?

Don't get me wrong, the Sony is a good telly. The picture is very good for a set from 2008. I bought it as it was cheaper than the Pannys at the time (its all expensive in Spain) and I wanted to go HD. It's just that I rushed into it.

In my opinion, Plasmas are better than LCDs. I like the plasma picture better than LCD, the wider viewing angle and for me, the better motion. (i have an eye condition that makes me notice judder less on plasmas). The other issue is that the Sony has developed an annoying lighter line down the screen which you can see in a darkened room (fogging or backlight irregularities) - an issue that plagued recent Sony LCDs that I wasn't aware of when I bought it.

Is that still and issue with their LCD's? I've got a 32" Panny LCD which has some light bleed at the bottom, not very noticable really, but I have to say it buggs me at times.