people who went for 42" instead of 50": Do you regret it?

[shyboy]

My wife always said that when we move to our next house, she will allow me to buy a Plasma TV. As we just sold ours, and we are in the process of looking, I started looking into the best plasmas and decided on the Panasonic. But, looking at them, we cant make up our minds if the 50" is worth the 2 grand difference or not. So, has anyone been in my situation and after buying a 42" decided they would have preferred the 50"? (be honest)

Also, can anyone recommend good (and cheaper the better) suppliers for the 42" and specially the 50" models?

Many Thanks for your thoughts,
ShyBoy.

 

[codlord]

I got a 42" panny (v4) and can say that I don't regret getting this rather than the 50" - I think for the size room I have and the viewing distance (about 10 ft) I think 42" is a better choice than 50". When I demo'd some 50" screens from my viewing distance I noticed pixel definition more than I would like. Also the 50" was deeper and thus stuck out from the wall more and was considerably heavier.

Not saying I would not prefer or like to have a bigger screen, but it would have to be a projector or something physically thinner/lighter and higher res for me to want to swap my current 42" plasma.

 

[cjdshaw]

I've got a 43" Pioneer. My viewing distance is about 15 feet and it's fine for my needs. I've had to move it around a couple of times and I think the extra weight would have been awkward.
The one thing that would have been nice is the extra resolution. If you're going to connect it to a PC, the 50"s are usually higher res and, in the case of the Pioneers, closer to square pixel.

 

[deman77]

I went for 42 due to budget constraints. Never regreted in terms of PQ. With current SD signals 50 show more artefacts and even though they are HD ready it's hard to justify 2K difference just for the future compatibility.

It could well be that these 2K will buy you a new 70 inch HD screen by the time HD arrives and you can move this plasma to display time on the kitchen wall.

 

[_Sin]

Coming from the opposite side of the fence, I have a 50" and although I love it to bits, I suspect a 42" one with the same resolution would have been fine.

The difference in size/resolution is probably not entirely worth the difference in price, so I know I paid a premium. I wavered a bit myself over the newer 42" HD panels, but in the end I decided I could afford not to compromise and splashed out.

 

[Jasonjo]

From my viewing distance (8-10ft) and what I saw at demo's I would say no, I am glad I went 42".

A 50" from that sort of distance with normal TV was a little too unacceptable to my eyes...save the dosh and put it in the bank for your next plasma upgrade

JJ

 

[MAW]

You need a 42" mate. Jason, remember what I said? This man is not a 50" buyer.

 

[Jasonjo]

JJ

 

[rscott4563]

Theres only one way to go and thats big, go 50" and you wont regret it, I'm 8.5ft away from a 50" and its amazing, even NTL is good/great depending on the channel and DVD's wow very cinematic, just could imagine only having the 42"er now, it would seem very much like just a TV and not an experience!

There is one problem though at this distance the plasma buzzing is noticeable...

 

[Stephen Wilde]

I bought a 42" and was so pleased with it that I bought a 50" for family use. Now I want an even bigger one to replace the 42" !!!

 

[emad]

I demoed a 504 in sevenoaks swisscotage and sat for 10 minutes at 9ft infront of it - no problems. Oh, and it was displaying Sky news at the time.

IMO If you can afford 50" go for it. 42" is nice, 50" is WOW nice.

Regards

Emad

 

[Matravers]

i was worried about buying the 50" for fear that it would just be too big......in fact i was even worried about the 42".

At first i thought the 42 was perfect choice but about 1 week later when you are used to the size and have forgotten what watching TV on those silly big square things (what r they called again) i thought that the extra 8" could easily have been lived with and regretted slightly.

But, as with most things once the novelty has worn and you are completely used to it, you forget the money you spent and start looking for a new toy!!!!!

I can't think why she left me though!!!........lol....probably cos i didnt get the 50".........rofl.


stop me please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[aligamer]

Hmmm, apparently the bigger screen you have (Plasmas) the worse the brightness is for it is? Well apparently says What Video & Widescreen TV mag - they said the ones shown in Japan - it was a Samsung 80" Plas - brightness wasn't too good.

Now whose gonna jump to 80" when that is available over here?

 

[suzywong]

Do not hesitate


Buy the 50 inch


YOU WILL NOT REGRET IT


chris & Sue

 

[MAW]

Live it large if you can afford the sound system to match, but personally I'd not compromise the audio side to get an exta 8" I'll ask my wife if she agrees.... George Lucas has been quoted as saying, 'the sound is 1/2 the film'. Nothing looks sillier than a socking great plasma and a DAVS550 Sony, nor sounds sillier.

 

[suzywong]

Originally posted by MAW
Live it large if you can afford the sound system to match, but personally I'd not compromise the audio side to get an exta 8" I'll ask my wife if she agrees.... George Lucas has been quoted as saying, 'the sound is 1/2 the film'. Nothing looks sillier than a socking great plasma and a DAVS550 Sony, nor sounds sillier.

Totally agree with Maw....which is why our sound system costs more than the screen!

However, in my (not so humble ) opinion, start with the big screen because it'll probably be the largest single outlay of your hard-earned cash and you can always upgrade the sound system later. Having said that, we did it the other way round , but then I'm an audiophile man first and foremost.....and my good lady is the one who buys Linn Isobariks for fun (so what do I know???????).


Chris & Sue

 

[TheBigApple]

No I don't regret buying a 43" as I used the £2000 I saved to buy a projector and a 7ft screen.

It's even better than going to the cinema.

 

[aligamer]

If i had the space i'd get 50" CRT cos its better than Plasma. Plasma, technology too new at the mo in my opinion.

 

[emad]

monkeyboy73,

the difference between the 50" and 43" (at least in the pioneer range) is no longer £2000. I've been monitoring the 434 and 504 prices for a while and where the 434 is stable at circa £4000 you can have the 504 for just below £5000 in some places.

A difference of just £1000 (well, not enough for a decent projector).

IMHO £1000 well spent, considering the higher resolution and the extra 7".

Emad

 

[rolandrat]

I 've had 36" 40" 41" TV's and now a 42" Plasma, its a good size on the wall without being "over the top", apart from that the cost of a 50" was too much even for me!!!
I wouldn't be around to enjoy it if I spent that much on a telly!

 

[TheBigApple]

Originally posted by emad
monkeyboy73,

the difference between the 50" and 43" (at least in the pioneer range) is no longer £2000. I've been monitoring the 434 and 504 prices for a while and where the 434 is stable at circa £4000 you can have the 504 for just below £5000 in some places.

At the time I picked up my plasma the difference was £2000 which I couldn't justify for the extra 7".

Originally posted by emad
A difference of just £1000 (well, not enough for a decent projector).

Depends what you want to acheive. I wanted a large screen and purchased A Sanyo Z1 and 7ft screen which can be picked up for a grand, and IMO looks more cinematic than any plasma.

 

[DaveCheltenham]

Screen size acceptance is almost fashionable. I’m a bit of an oldie and in my very young days, my first experience of TV was on a 6 inch round green screen VCR97 and thought that was fantastic.

Over the years I have always gone for the bigger screens sooner rather than later and continually got comments like, “21 inches is far too big for my room”. The same when colour started, “I much prefer black and white”.

To get to the point, I went for a 42 inch about 15 months ago; have never regretted it but would seriously think about going to 50 inches if I had to buy another one. If not a 50, I would certainly go for a higher resolution 42 to better display computer output. Must say the 42 now seems no bigger that the 32 widescreen it replaced but am not about to change it yet.

 

[bobgriffiths]

I install plasma tv and have fitted many 50" and 42"/43" models The fact that sky/terestrial looks worse on a 50" made me personally buy a 42" . also i sit right on top of it 3 metres away from it in a 4X4 metre room so it looks big in this room .
I fitted a 50" in one guys snooker room on a wall and it looked tiny!!
It depends on how critical you are on digital artifacts and how big your room is .If your sat on top of a 50" and watching sky sports you will notice digital artifacts if your a fair distance away you wont notice them as much.
I have read of guys modding Sky boxes plus version 1 boxes with a SDI output connected to a scaler to give better picture (but from faults what i have read still suffer from occasional stuttering picture etc.)

On DVD 50 "plasmas our ordinary tv standard is just that "ordinary "and with big screens its starting to show its age.

If i had a bigger room i would buy a 50" tommorrow but be careful in small rooms.

 

[DJW]

I wonder how many PJ guys are sitting chuckling about a discussion over 8 inch differences, when they are used to a an 8 foot experience. Sorry guys, just made me chuckle & yes of course I would love a 50" plasma if I could afford it.....the bathroom wall would look lovely with one ...double

 

[jont]

I'm happy with my panny 42 series 4 ... many hours use out of it with all sources ... glad I didn't go for the 50" at the time as was much more expensive ... I'll hold out now until I see a hi-def 50" at a reasonable price ... IMHO the pio with 1024x768 isn't high enough as i'd like to be able to cope with 1080p with hdtv - and in my mind a 1:1 map between source and screen is the best way to be ;-)

Jon