LG 50PG20

August 28, 2008 03:00

4.0/5
Great price and value.

- j2beatz

August 20, 2008 10:44

4.5/5
This is a great Tv. The picture quality, colors, tint are all very good. The only drawback is the black. It could be better, but for the price range, I think this is the best Tv.

- cbourdeau

December 21, 2008 10:36

4.0/5
I think this set deserve a better rating than what CNET gave to it. I think it is comparable to a Samsung PN40A450 which was the TV I was looking to buy before I saw this deal.

I bought this set for 725$, which was by far the cheapest 50" plasma/lcd I could find (even cheaper than no-brand models). While this TV is not great, I think it is "good enough" for many people. Since I have no real HD source yet other than my PC, I was only able to try non-HD sources: a XBOX first generation, DVDs on a non-upscaling player and the PC/VGA connection.

Despite that, I'm already enjoying the TV and it's actually much better than I expected . I bought the TV before reading this review, but read this review before I plugged my PC for the first time. I was disappointed to read here that PC through VGA did not result in a good image. When I tried it, I was expecting a very bad image. It was actually much better that I thought it would be. First, I did not expect to be able to use a resolution of 1900x1200. While this is not a native resolution on the LG, it's still possible to use it and the result is not that bad. For sure, the text is not crisp if fonts are small, but for display of images or video sequences, the result is okay. Since you generally don't read text less than 2 feet from a 50" screen, the text sharpness was not really a problem, as I had to increase the font size anyway.

So, for users like me that had only CRTs before, who sit more than 8 feet from the set and who still have many non-HD sources and who buy a 50" plasma mainly for the size of the screen, this TV is a very good value, particularly for the price paid.

Updated on Dec 21, 2008

Update: the Samsung model I was referring to is the Samsung PN50A450, not PN40A450.

- psoucy9

October 3, 2008 11:08

4.0/5
You get what you pay for, most of the time. I think you get a lot of bang for the buck here. It's a good brand with good picture quality. I watch about 5 hrs of TV a week so I think this will suit me fine. If you are a TVophile you should spend more and get more. I can tell the blacks aren't as black but only because that's all everyone talks about. I wish I could go back to my Trinitron and look at the blacks. All in all am satisfied. I have the 22 in LCD version for my bedroom and I like it too.

- fitchhollister

September 7, 2008 09:37

5.0/5
For the money this is a great plasma that my family and I will enjoy for years to come

- Braun23

September 1, 2008 05:06

4.5/5
I sure dont know what this cnet editor is talking about. I bought this tv for $1200 from Best Buy on 6/08. I sat there comparing several other tvs and was completely sold on this model due to the price, clarity, color, style. I actually was looking at a Panasonic model for the same price at Sears, but decided not to due to the salesman not giving me the 2 years free financing too with pricematch (best buy was $1400). While looking at other tvs on the wall, I could not see a drastic difference between this tv, and other 50" 1080p tvs that would nececitate the $400-800 price difference, unless I went with a more budget model (Dynex, Westinghouse) and those tvs were nothing compared to the clarity, brightness, color of this tv.

Reading the cnet article and I have to highly disagree with the editor on the color aspects. The whole review was nothing but a negative diss on just that! And they compared it to other higher end models! How can you do a proper review and comparison on an item when you only compare it to those models? Its like Car and Driver comparing a Honda Civic (would say Geo but this is by no means that much of a budget model) to a Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes! They need to compare it side by side (none of this "didn't have any similar budget models to properly compare it to, just imagining what they looked like or compare it to a model that is $500 or more expensive than this one).

This tv is by far an excellent purchase for anyone who is looking for a great tv, great size (50"!!!!!!), great everything for such a value!

Would have given it a 5 star, but the screen is to "glary" so to speak.

- ticklemedaly

November 7, 2008 08:17
Terrible
0.5/5
I have had the TV for three months and have had nothing but trouble with it after the first month. It would take about a half hour after turning on before I could watch it and it would sometime cut out in the middle of a movie or watching cable. I would have rated lower than 0.5 star if I could.

What a disappointment after saving up to buy it. Completely disappointed with the TV but more disappointed with LG the Company. Remember, you aren't just paying for the TV but the service after. I will pay more for electronics in the future from a different company with a better customer service reputation.

- nearthewater

September 3, 2008 05:10
Spectacular
2.5/5
Woudnt,by their plasma,s but their LCD,s are quite good.

- TM009