Sony ZF9 (KD-65ZF9) Review & Comments

Depends on the lcd, my dx902 looks better than both the vt65 and zt65 I owned for 1080p content
I don't have the 902 but having had a Panasonic ST series (yes I know it's not the VT/ZT) a decent 4K LED should be better even at 1080p.
 
The Bad
  • Lack of contrast and elevated blacks, especially with HDR content
  • Black bars light up with SDR and especially with HDR content - all the time!
  • Could be more accurate out of the box
  • Some slight DSE and vertical banding from the backlight
  • Haloing and blooming with HDR content especially noticeable off-axis
Well that didn't go as expected.

The only good news from this review is that there is little reason to worry about "upgrading" from our 3 year old Sony's.

MASTER SERIES My A*se
 
Perhaps the ZF9 is more a replacement for last years XE93/94 than the ZD9.
Last year the 65” XE9305 launched at £3299, so the 65ZF9 launching at £2799 looks a bit of a bargain.
I guess making a true successor to the ZD9 would of meant a retail price Sony thought would struggle against OLED, which all the manufacturers are pushing as the premium product?
 
Perhaps the ZF9 is more a replacement for last years XE93/94 than the ZD9.
Last year the 65” XE9305 launched at £3299, so the 65ZF9 launching at £2799 looks a bit of a bargain.
I guess making a true successor to the ZD9 would of meant a retail price Sony thought would struggle against OLED, which all the manufacturers are pushing as the premium product?

The Z range is it's own tier, so ZF is indeed the replacement for the ZD9.

What's even more disappointing (aside from crap contrast perf) is that Sony STILL cannot fully saturate DCI P3 in the LCD space.

I mean 3 years ago the ZD9 was at 90%, whilst the DX902 was 98%, now the ZF9 is 94%, it's not good enough, and that moniker 'Master' makes it all the worse, also other LCD brands like Samsung can hit 99-100%, so why can't they?
 
Last edited:
The Z range is it's own tier, so ZF is indeed the replacement for the ZD9.

What's even more disappointing (aside from crap contrast perf) is that Sony STILL cannot fully saturate DCI P3 in the LCD space.

I mean 3 years ago the ZD9 was at 90%, whilst the DX902 was 98%, now the ZF9 is 94%, it's not good enough, and that moniker 'Master' makes it all the worse.
I totally agree with you that it doesn’t deserve to be designated a Z range model.
Perhsps what I should have said is that it should have instead been designated an XF94?
 
I totally agree with you that it doesn’t deserve to be designated a Z range model.
Perhsps what I should have said is that it should have instead been designated an XF94?

Absolutely, much better fit! As for marketing, there is just no way they could do that, but if they were honest, it would just end up a paper release with some paragraph about how good it is and end it at that.
 
Harsh comments in here and most of them justified. We all wanted to see a true successor to the epic zd9. So close...

I wrote in another post why I believe the zf9 is a superb tv BUT Sony did a major mistake by sacrificing the native contrast for more viewing angle...

Read some comments here and had a think. It is obvious what happened when you think about it:
- Sony current strategy is oled...nice and simple. Just see how much love they gave zf9 MASTER series...pretty much none.
- would you release the true successor of zd9 when it is not 8k and has no hdmi 2.1? Of course not. In case some didn’t notice, Sony changed from the yearly refresh strategy to a 1-3 years product cycle...zd9 started the trend...a1 still around in 100 inch and so forth...
- Sony is arrogant but also like to innovate. When everyone is busy with mini led or true qled or qantum oled, they may come with cledis or something similar...they like doing that a lot but often slow and don’t communicate at all.
- they will come back in force at next sept event and that’s exactly what they did with zd9...

My point is that zf9 is a very good tv especially in 75 but it is not in zd9 league as the tv has to be very special and survive the next 3 years.

they will sort a new premium range...Ultimate master 8k or god knows how marketeers will call it...

Time will tell...but a normal fald (even with 600 zones) without 8k or hdmi 2.1 is not enough anymore. Applies to all of them. The goal post moved and we also have to move with it.
 
I think its fairly obvious that the ZF9 was built to a price and to appeal more to average consumer with so much effort spent on the wide viewing angles. The irony of this is its also called the Master series so you would expect the performance to match up to the name and it really doesn't. Especially with two of the most important aspects of picture quality, contrast and blacks. Its very disappointing and I remember how excited I was for this set with the initial rumours of 4000 nits and 1000 dimming zones which would of put this set as one of the best of not the best 4K LCD out there as it does well in other areas. Im wondering if at CES they will have a true LCD flagship to the ZD9 with 8K higher brightness and more zones/mini LED. I wouldn't get my hopes up but im curious to see what they come up with at CES.

The idea of a good TV to me is a TV that doesn't take you out of the movie experience by its flaws or uniformity issues and the constant leakage into the black bars would ruin it for me because anything that takes your eyes away from the actual movie itself is not good.
 
Does anyone think maybe this TV was a very poor example or maybe even faulty.

I've demo'ed two and neither had bad light bleed or banding issues?

And yes I'm are of the differences in a store.
 
Does anyone think maybe this TV was a very poor example or maybe even faulty.

I've demo'ed two and neither had bad light bleed or banding issues?

And yes I'm are of the differences in a store.
It was a brand new TV from Crampton and Moore and it was updated to the latest firmware. At first, I thought it might have been an issue of a bad example but further investigation and checks turned up the same results with others, so it appears representative of the 65-inch model. I can only review what is in front of me and the fact it is a brand new TV from a retailer and not a manufacturer supplied sample, is the best representative example of what you can buy.
 
@Phil Hinton
Hi Phil, Thanks for the review, I've followed this TV from it's launch in New York.
Do you think there is any chance of you getting Sony to provide a statement about the review for Avforum members?
This might sound like a serious ask, but I'm really starting to lose all faith in what TV manufacturers now say, not just Sony, all of them.
This is a flagship TV, it sits at the top of the Sony range, alongside the AF9, Sony allows consumers to choose between OLED and LCD, I will say it again, this is Sony's Flagship LED.
Sony at their press event in New York made several promises, two of which your review show to be false.
1. The end of the panel lottery! Sony claimed they calibrated the panels at the factory to finally, finally... ensure customer didn't face a panel lottery, your review seems to indicate otherwise.
2. The most accurate colours, even stating that all Master Series TV's are the closest you can get to their own reference monitor, as used by film studios.

Great I thought, a manufacturer that is bringing back quality and consistency, at price, it's not a cheap TV, but I don't mind, I would be happy to pay for the colour accuracy and panel uniformity.

Sony got a lot of press coverage from their New York event, pushing their claims of their product.

So what happen? Where do we stand as consumers? Should manufacturers be allowed to continue to make claims about their products that don't match what they ship to consumers.

And... please before some member comments that it's a "consumer product" and "you should always view a TV before you buy", and "if you are that bothered get the TV professionally calibrated", please, go away...

This is about a manufacturer making claims about a product, this is an advertising standards issue.

I'm getting very tired of claim other claim from TV companies, so Phil, please feel free to pass my post onto Sony and ask them to provide a comment for Avforum members.

Oops, who fell for the marketing BS then ?
 
I got one of these a couple of weeks ago now, my trusty old X4500 which was an amazing Sony LCD developed a terminal fault and I had to decide on a replacement quick and the ZF9 was where I wound up.

Maybe I am less demanding or maybe I just got a better unit but other than the bloom into black bars on a widescreen image it seems pretty good so far. Even the blooming on the bars doesn't seem to happen that much, though it is certainly there when a bright source is on the edge of the bar but unless I watch the bar rather than the movie I don't really notice it or find it distracting.
 
I don't think its that your less demanding. The quality and upgrade of a TV depends a lot on the TV your coming from. In your case a X4500 so the ZF9 should be a good upgrade over that. Phil though for example was able to compare with the Q9FN, Q900 and a OLED so its much easier for him to see the differences and in this case the negatives of the ZF9. Plus people just have different tolerances when it comes to uniformity issues. Bleed into the bars in any form is something that I can't live with aswell as my eyes are drawn away from the picture and its just a distraction to me.
 
I got one of these a couple of weeks ago now, my trusty old X4500 which was an amazing Sony LCD developed a terminal fault and I had to decide on a replacement quick and the ZF9 was where I wound up.

Maybe I am less demanding or maybe I just got a better unit but other than the bloom into black bars on a widescreen image it seems pretty good so far. Even the blooming on the bars doesn't seem to happen that much, though it is certainly there when a bright source is on the edge of the bar but unless I watch the bar rather than the movie I don't really notice it or find it distracting.

I've had my 75-inch ZF9 for a few weeks now and I'm blown away with it.

The uniformity of the panel completely outweighs any other issues the TV may have... not that it really has many. There is zero DSE on my set and even after a few weeks I'm still thinking 'wow' everytime I turn it on. I'm not sure the ZD9 was a DSE free panel?

I just don't get the issues being reported with black performance on this TV?

I'm seeing deep blacks. I use bias lighting and have actually done some viewing with it off and the blacks remain deep.

I'm not alone in my praise of the TV. Over on the AVS forums, all (but one) of the owners of the TV seem mightily impressed, at least in 75-inch size.

And the shadow detail on this thing is truly astonishing too.

I see lots of comments from people who don't own this TV or haven't even seen it in person. You're making your minds up vicariously through reviews. Sure, reviews give you measurements that can't be disputed. However, what your eyes see can be something else.

Measurements do not always accurately reflect human visual perception. A machine does not allow for the synergistic effects that the human visual system can benefit (and sometimes suffer) from.

The images on this TV certainly are reference quality. In the weeks I've had with the TV I've been constantly tinkering with the settings and have finally arrived on those that accentuate the image on this TV to their fullest.

It really is an amazing TV and I do suggest seeing it in action in an environment close to your own before making judgement.

If I hadn't been happy with it... I wouldn't be keeping it. But mine isn't going anywhere.
 
I've seen a few comments saying the 75 performs better than the 65. It would be very useful (although I'm not sure how practical) to review the 75 inch as well to see how it compares.

What HiFi (so take it with a pinch of salt) complains about poor black depth and uneven backlighting on the 75" too.
It could be a panel lottery thing too perhaps.
 
A flagship TV? More light a pirate ship! I have not seen ANY positive reviews of this TV.
Owners of the ZD9 from Sony and the Panasonic 902 still have the flagship LCD models from these manufacturers despite being 3 years old!!
 
I've had my 75-inch ZF9 for a few weeks now and I'm blown away with it.
That's great and surely all that matters for you.

The uniformity of the panel completely outweighs any other issues the TV may have... not that it really has many. There is zero DSE on my set and even after a few weeks I'm still thinking 'wow' everytime I turn it on. I'm not sure the ZD9 was a DSE free panel?
As you will see in my review, I agree that in some respects it really is a great TV, but it is let down, in my opinion, and in direct comparison to its peers, by the issues I discuss in my review.

I just don't get the issues being reported with black performance on this TV?
I'm seeing deep blacks. I use bias lighting and have actually done some viewing with it off and the blacks remain deep.
I'm not alone in my praise of the TV. Over on the AVS forums, all (but one) of the owners of the TV seem mightily impressed, at least in 75-inch size.
Again, in isolation, I can see how you would reach such conclusions, but in direct comparisons and with a reference it is clear to see issues, especially with HDR material.

And the shadow detail on this thing is truly astonishing too.
With certain material I agree with you on this one, I say as much in the review.

I see lots of comments from people who don't own this TV or haven't even seen it in person. You're making your minds up vicariously through reviews. Sure, reviews give you measurements that can't be disputed. However, what your eyes see can be something else.
Our reviews consist of more than just measurements, we do direct comparisons with competing sets and technologies with well over a decades experience. However, I do agree with you that on a forum you will see people making comments based on things they have no direct experience with, on a constant basis. Reviews are for informational use to help you build up a picture of the product so you can put together a demo list of products to go and test yourself. Nobody should be buying a TV from a review on its own.

Measurements do not always accurately reflect human visual perception. A machine does not allow for the synergistic effects that the human visual system can benefit (and sometimes suffer) from.
That's why you have reviews written by experienced reviewers who have the knowledge to know when to look beyond results on a computer, something that is mentioned in every review, the graphs and measures are only one part of the story, direct comparisons in controlled circumstances and the experience of the reviewer make up the rest. Again, reviews are a guide and you should always test a TV for yourself before purchase.

The images on this TV certainly are reference quality. In the weeks I've had with the TV I've been constantly tinkering with the settings and have finally arrived on those that accentuate the image on this TV to their fullest.
It can't be a reference if you are tinkering with the settings. It can only be reference if it actually meets certain standards and is assessed as such. Your tinkering doesn't equate to any reference level performance. This is why as reviewers we measure to the standards as only then can you declare something as hitting the reference point. As a reviewer, you also have to remove any bias toward brands or personal preferences and certainly buyers bias. That is incredibly difficult to do and the forums is full of this. Owners threads and comments are incredibly useful but you should also temper that with the fact that there is a certain ownership bias present, even if the comments are negative. Don't get me wrong, I fully respect your opinion, but it is your opinion and based on what is important to you. I don't have that luxury as a reviewer as I have to tell it like it is warts and all. I understand that sometimes that doesn't sit well or agree with a users personal experience of the product they own. As long as you are happy with it, then that is all that matters.

It really is an amazing TV and I do suggest seeing it in action in an environment close to your own before making judgement.

If I hadn't been happy with it... I wouldn't be keeping it. But mine isn't going anywhere.
That is very good advice and I fully agree, don't buy something based solely on a review here or elsewhere, put all your information together from lots of sources and then decide which sets you want to demo on a short list and pick the one you like the most. There are no right or wrong answers to this one.
If you are happy, that is all that matters to you. Enjoy your TV.
 
The Z range is it's own tier, so ZF is indeed the replacement for the ZD9.

What's even more disappointing (aside from crap contrast perf) is that Sony STILL cannot fully saturate DCI P3 in the LCD space.

I mean 3 years ago the ZD9 was at 90%, whilst the DX902 was 98%, now the ZF9 is 94%, it's not good enough, and that moniker 'Master' makes it all the worse, also other LCD brands like Samsung can hit 99-100%, so why can't they?

Sony x930 Measured DCI-P3 coverage 97% (Vincent)

...to soon or to easy?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's great and surely all that matters for you.


As you will see in my review, I agree that in some respects it really is a great TV, but it is let down, in my opinion, and in direct comparison to its peers, by the issues I discuss in my review.


Again, in isolation, I can see how you would reach such conclusions, but in direct comparisons and with a reference it is clear to see issues, especially with HDR material.


With certain material I agree with you on this one, I say as much in the review.


Our reviews consist of more than just measurements, we do direct comparisons with competing sets and technologies with well over a decades experience. However, I do agree with you that on a forum you will see people making comments based on things they have no direct experience with, on a constant basis. Reviews are for informational use to help you build up a picture of the product so you can put together a demo list of products to go and test yourself. Nobody should be buying a TV from a review on its own.


That's why you have reviews written by experienced reviewers who have the knowledge to know when to look beyond results on a computer, something that is mentioned in every review, the graphs and measures are only one part of the story, direct comparisons in controlled circumstances and the experience of the reviewer make up the rest. Again, reviews are a guide and you should always test a TV for yourself before purchase.


It can't be a reference if you are tinkering with the settings. It can only be reference if it actually meets certain standards and is assessed as such. Your tinkering doesn't equate to any reference level performance. This is why as reviewers we measure to the standards as only then can you declare something as hitting the reference point. As a reviewer, you also have to remove any bias toward brands or personal preferences and certainly buyers bias. That is incredibly difficult to do and the forums is full of this. Owners threads and comments are incredibly useful but you should also temper that with the fact that there is a certain ownership bias present, even if the comments are negative. Don't get me wrong, I fully respect your opinion, but it is your opinion and based on what is important to you. I don't have that luxury as a reviewer as I have to tell it like it is warts and all. I understand that sometimes that doesn't sit well or agree with a users personal experience of the product they own. As long as you are happy with it, then that is all that matters.


That is very good advice and I fully agree, don't buy something based solely on a review here or elsewhere, put all your information together from lots of sources and then decide which sets you want to demo on a short list and pick the one you like the most. There are no right or wrong answers to this one.
If you are happy, that is all that matters to you. Enjoy your TV.

Fantastic reply... really appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail.

Can't really disagree with anything you've said.

Many thanks... :clap::clap::clap:
 
Phil Hinton,

900F - 8
ZF9 - 7
Q9FN - 10

Ha-ha-ha

Change your jobs and do not mislead people!
 
Phil Hinton,

900F - 8
ZF9 - 7
Q9FN - 10

Ha-ha-ha

Change your jobs and do not mislead people!
I think you have to take the scores in relation to the price and tier. The ZF9 is meant to be top tier and costs a lot of money so in that respect 7 out of 10 is fair. I would agree that the 10 for the Q9FN is a bit suspect though ;)
 
Phil Hinton,

900F - 8
ZF9 - 7
Q9FN - 10

Ha-ha-ha

Change your jobs and do not mislead people!
Why do you think that they are misleading people? You write a comment empty of any information accusing others.

Before writing that sort of stuff at least have the decency to explain how you got to that conclusion.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom