It looks more desirable now at £2999.Probably not at that price difference. Given you can now get the 55Q90r for £2499 maybe £3299 might have been more suitable?
I did.In the market for a new TV and the 900 and 950 are both appealing.
Has anyone gone from the 900 to the 950?
Any specific thoughts or comments?
What is best price currently on the 900 and 950 in 65 inch?
Thanks.
How did you get on?yeah in the end I just us the tv and the Q with all the HDMI ports. I'll let the engineer play before it gets taken back. Never know I might learn something.. Its all packed away now until Wednesday night when Ill get it out again ready for the attendance. Ill make sure its just the Sky Q at first too.
Well the Q950R arrived and the Q9FN has gone.
Must say that after reading many negative opinions on this TV, it's much better than I expected it to be.
That said, having come from the Q9FN, the difference in contrast ratio is HUGE & I already miss it.
Dark scenes especially just appear more washed out than they did on the Q9FN. Bright scenes are good, very good even.
Gaming seems equally as good as the Q9FN, though once again that native contrast ratio is not even close. Plus due to the local dimming taking a big step back whilst in game mode, dark scenes look rough unless I turn on some kind of ambient light. (This was an issue with both TVs, just the Q9FN performed better)
It's not a bad TV by any stretch of the imagination, just not quite sure where Samsung decided to ask for some ridiculous prices.
I have noted though that the one connect box on this gets SIGNIFICANTLY hotter than it did on my Q9FN, and that burned out on me last time! Though didn't happen on my prior 3.
I also seem to have got lucky in the panel lottery, very very little DSE & no noticeable banding. Very happy on that front.
I now need to figure out a way to get this TV either returned or sold. Not sure many will pay the price for these on Ebay even at a reduced price.
Samsung exchanged this TV for me as a replacement to my 4th faulty Q9FN, so they wont accept back either.
Well the Q950R arrived and the Q9FN has gone.
Must say that after reading many negative opinions on this TV, it's much better than I expected it to be.
That said, having come from the Q9FN, the difference in contrast ratio is HUGE & I already miss it.
Dark scenes especially just appear more washed out than they did on the Q9FN. Bright scenes are good, very good even.
Gaming seems equally as good as the Q9FN, though once again that native contrast ratio is not even close. Plus due to the local dimming taking a big step back whilst in game mode, dark scenes look rough unless I turn on some kind of ambient light. (This was an issue with both TVs, just the Q9FN performed better)
It's not a bad TV by any stretch of the imagination, just not quite sure where Samsung decided to ask for some ridiculous prices.
I have noted though that the one connect box on this gets SIGNIFICANTLY hotter than it did on my Q9FN, and that burned out on me last time! Though didn't happen on my prior 3.
I also seem to have got lucky in the panel lottery, very very little DSE & no noticeable banding. Very happy on that front.
I now need to figure out a way to get this TV either returned or sold. Not sure many will pay the price for these on Ebay even at a reduced price.
Samsung exchanged this TV for me as a replacement to my 4th faulty Q9FN, so they wont accept back either.
The Human eye by its design picks up a variation of colours more easily closer to black than it does at higher brightness levels and for most people 700 nits is already "too" bright. So really an OLED (especially for dark room watching) can deliver much better "pop" through higher contrast ratio.I have now purchased an LG C9 65" for comparison & I'm blown away.
How is the LG so much more vivid? (800nit v 3000)
I didn't believe it could be, and in store it certainly didn't look it, but at home with my own content its vastly improved.
How did Samsung make such a mess of this TV compared to last years offerings?
That all kind of makes sense. Playing Gears 5 on the OLED now & its mind blowing how much better it looks that the Q950R. It's not even close.The Human eye by its design picks up a variation of colours more easily closer to black than it does at higher brightness levels and for most people 700 nits is already "too" bright. So really an OLED (especially for dark room watching) can deliver much better "pop" through higher contrast ratio.
I don't think that this years Samsung's are any better or worse overall than last years models, its just they still come with the usual pros and cons of LCD tech.
Yeah I'm reading that it's a far blown out issue, yet without doubt it can happen.What a massive disappointment this TV is!
Coming from a 65 inch 2016 LG E6, there is no comparison, the LG is better in every way. I had high hopes that these QLED sets may finally have caught up, I was wrong.
Not tried anything fancy, just a side by side comparison between the LG and the Samsung.
@ToonTonic - don't worry about burn in, unless the newer sets are much worse (doubt it?) the 2016 has been superb, also have the 2017 B7 and that's not had an issue either.
Yeah I'm reading that it's a far blown out issue, yet without doubt it can happen.
I'm sure your aware, I have the Q950R & LG C9. Tomorrow I shall also have the 2018 Q900R to compare against the other two.
Id like the Q900R to be very much like my old Q9FN, if so, I'll be keeping it. That was VERY good.
If not, I'll be getting the 77" C9 rather than this 65".
I understand why Samsung went for the wide angle viewing filters on the Q950R, but coming from a Q9FN it's such a huge step backwards in native contrast.
What frustrates me more is the obviously paid off reviewers. My wife (who isnt the little bit interested in TVs tbh) noticed the difference within 5 seconds between the Q9FN & Q950. Not quite sure how this set earned 5/5 in the slightest.