Anyone do a side by side comparison with any of the samsung 6400&up models?the 6400&7100 arent as sharp as the 8000,but cost less.
880648
CNET did. Go to CNET.com and they compare most to all electronics and give you the specs on different models and such.
155374
No actual comparison, yet I inclined to Sharp for the following reasons: 1.- panel manufactured in Japan; 2.- Sharp manufactures the largest TV; 3.- this Aquos has 4 color components for color red, green, blue and Yelow - no one else has that; 4.- my old Sharp Aquos still functions w/o problem after 7 years; 5.- embedded software may be a little less sofisticated than Samsung's; 6.- Sharp customer service is outstanding; my experience with Samsung customer service was less than satisfactory. Good luck in your choice Ray!
880649
The Samsung was just another TV. Sharp designed and manufactures it's own screens, which has to be a factor in their competitive pricing. My 875 keeps adding apps, so I don't know how many I have now, but I bought it for the display, the extra yellow pixel really makes HD and Blue Ray pop!
536986
I own both, and personnally I prefer the samsung. It seems to be a clearer picture when running games... just my thoughts.
302407
I don't know how much help I can be but I'll give it a shot. I bought the Samsung because I own a Samsung LCD 46" bought in '08. I was quite happy with that TV so I stuck with the Samsung brand. I really think the 46" has a better picture than the 65" LED. Could be because of a consequential loss of picture clarity that comes with larger screen sizes. The UN65 has a dual core processor but if you're really into "smart," I recommend the quad core (more money of course). I subscribe to NFL game replays and they won't load well (and therefore can't view) with the dual core; I have to use my quad core computer. I think the UN has a really reasonable price, but you generally get what you pay for (as the old saying goes). Bottom line . . . I like the UN65 but, at the same time, I am a little disappointed. The only way you'll ever know is to look at them side-by-side and remember, showrooms do not have real-life broadcasts (in most instances) so when you get one home, your picture may not be a great as in the showroom. Hope this helps somewhat and good luck!
1026320
where did you buy it for such a low price? whats hhgregg? my curiosity gets me when i see on the samsung website the MSRP for the 860 still at over 3k and the new c8000 at 2899. you would think the c8000 would be higher... unless they think the 860 is a better TV.
508177
I have the samsung un55-8000, i think it is great event though sony as a little less ghosting but there isn't much of a difference between the two
837915
It's not the Panasonic, it's the Samsung. Many people go out and buy these LCD's with 120 refresh rates only to find themselves with the same thing you are talking abouta nearly "too clear" or "soap opera" looking picture. Go out and read the reviews for the 120 refresh sets. Many people find themselves preferring a little extra judder from the 60 refresh than the picture being almost too realistic as you stated; others say it's worth the trade off, it all personal perference. I know for sure the Samsung LCD 600 series are 120 refresh for sure. Being you feed it such a nice clean 1080P signal with the panny and you get the result. Bottom line is that effect is not from your DVD player. It's not the Panasonic, it's the Samsung. Many people go out and buy these LCD's with 120 refresh rates only to find themselves with the same thing you are talking abouta nearly "too clear" or "soap opera" looking picture. Go out and read the reviews for the 120 refresh sets. Many people find themselves preferring a little extra judder from the 60 refresh than the picture being almost too realistic as you stated; others say it's worth the trade off, it all personal perference. I know for sure the Samsung LCD 600 series are 120 refresh for sure. Being you feed it... » Read More It's not the Panasonic, it's the Samsung. Many people go out and buy these LCD's with 120 refresh rates only to find themselves with the same thing you are talking abouta nearly "too clear" or "soap opera" looking picture. Go out and read the reviews for the 120 refresh sets. Many people find themselves preferring a little extra judder from the 60 refresh than the picture being almost too realistic as you stated; others say it's worth the trade off, it all personal perference. I know for sure the Samsung LCD 600 series are 120 refresh for sure. Being you feed it such a nice clean 1080P signal with the panny and you get the result. Bottom line is that effect is not from your DVD player. « Show Less
981054
Not to hijack your thread but I'm kind of in the same situation. I want to get a TV for Bluray but am not sure to wait or buy now.Also, is the extra 150$ worth it from the 61 to 65 model? The only difference I can see is the 5,000 point difference in Contrast Ratio, is that worth the extra money?Thanks.
1128941
I looked at both and bought the 750....for the price (and difference) you are really looking at how important a super thin TV is to you, if saving $2 a month on your energy bill makes that big of a difference, or if you are that nuts about LED, for $800 I wasn't. 200,000 to 1 as a Dynamic contrast ratio is more than enough (you can't really tell much more of a difference). If you really wanna get the LED and are willing to spend that kind of money get the 8000 (even thinner and edge lit led). Because of the models above and below it, and price differences I don't see the 7000 making much sense unless you find a unique deal that only has that set on sale. I looked at both and bought the 750....for the price (and difference) you are really looking at how important a super thin TV is to you, if saving $2 a month on your energy bill makes that big of a difference, or if you are that nuts about LED, for $800 I wasn't. 200,000 to 1 as a Dynamic contrast ratio is more than enough (you can't really tell much more of a difference). If you really wanna get the LED and are willing to spend that kind of money get the 8000 (even thinner and edge lit led). Because of the models above and below it, and price differences I don't see the 7000... » Read More I looked at both and bought the 750....for the price (and difference) you are really looking at how important a super thin TV is to you, if saving $2 a month on your energy bill makes that big of a difference, or if you are that nuts about LED, for $800 I wasn't. 200,000 to 1 as a Dynamic contrast ratio is more than enough (you can't really tell much more of a difference). If you really wanna get the LED and are willing to spend that kind of money get the 8000 (even thinner and edge lit led). Because of the models above and below it, and price differences I don't see the 7000 making much sense unless you find a unique deal that only has that set on sale. « Show Less
1177487
I have been tracking the 4095/4096, 4061, and 4065 for a while now and have spent some time on the phone with Samsung to learn the differences. The 4095 and 4096 were both at one time quite affordable on Amazon. They are last year's models and thus if you can find them either have a low price tag because they are old or a slightly higher pricetag well, simply because people still show interest in these TVs. Both received excellent reviews and were amongst the best rated LCDs of 2006. As far as 2007 goes - the 4061 and 4065 have stepped in. The 4065 is a replacement of the 4096, with a higher contrast ratio and additional HDMI inputs. The 4061 is really just a step below that with slightly lower quality speakers. However, from what I have read the 4061 has a new image processor over last year's models. The 4061 also has a slightly lower contrast ratio than the 4065. Having seen all of these models in store - I can tell you visually, you will never truly see a difference between the 4061 and 4065. With proper calibration and settings - most LCDs can be made to look fantastic, and the 4061 is simply above par. Despite its semi-poor sound, if you hook it up to a receiver and use other speakers, it doesnt really matter. Amazon is the way to shop - prices are always coming down - and remember to check back after purchase for they will reimburse you if the price drops lower within the month. Hope this helps.
235177
I only evaluated to models with 3D; the Sharp and the Samsung UN75F6400. I thought they were very comparable in 3D mode and the price difference was obviously substantial, even though the Samsung is a 75-inch. I purchased the 70-inch Sharp in early August and we have watched a half-dozen movies in 3D since we received it and our family has been thoroughly impressed. Some movies, like Avatar, have some shadowing and clarity issues in the background imaging, but I was the only one of our family who really noticed it; probably because I was looking hard to evaluate the entire picture. The 3D features along with the internet / video streaming capability have been very good so far.
577877
Hi,I have seen the many difference and also the build quality is way different then SQ model. Also UQ is certified THX . So its better in many ways. For info you can listen to conference of Sharp on Youtube.Note - On Friday I got this TV and I am still analyzing the functionality. Will update my review soon.ThanksAbhin
2070627
Dear Lance, The UN65H8000 has 1080p upscaling but not 4K upscaling. 4K is higher resolution. Eric C
183317
My big issue is all the negative discussion on the 750 "Halo" - light leak around the edges.Is this gone on the 850/860? The 850 is slightly cheaper at AZ, only because shippingis free. If the 750 really is a fine tv and the halo is all over statement, then thebetter sound actually helps me. Appreciate suggestions.
1666495
I've had both TV's. The B550 replaced my A550 which was broken. The PIP was on A550 but the screen was so small it wasn't worth it. The sound on the B550 is supposed to be better but I'm unconvinced. I think it's worse. But I do admit that the accident that broke my A550 could have caused a problem on the HDMI port on my cable box. I'm not ready to blame Samsung yet. But I have also read reviews where sound was mentioned as an issue. But the picture on the B550 is a lot better.
1825564
its way more clearer than LG and Sharp!!!Sharp come close, but Sony is just way BETTER!!!!!!!!!!i remember watching a Sharp 52" vs. Sony Bravia 52" in in the store and the Bravia is just way better and have better image than the Sharp, period, no question ask, Sony beat Sharp!
1738724
It's close to half the price of a new 4k and as of right now there's almost no 4k content to watch anyway. Personally I'm not a fan of the 4k picture, it's simply just too bright, and for no good reason. The only one I've watched for an extended period gave me a terrible headache. The 8500 to me is just about perfect.
1339546
The 6300's do not use all Samsung parts and do not have a high enough picture quality/refresh rate in order to support 3D. The 6400's use all Samsung parts and have a high enough picture quality/refresh rate in order to support great 3D picture. Also the 6400's have Micro-dimming that gives you much greater contrast in the picture and allows for deeper black areas.