Hisense Q7G 65" $897 FS

Rtings seems to give mediocore reviews about this TV,
I think at the same price point, this one on a different thread seems to be a better deal?
Here

What Samsung Series is this equal to 60/70?

PatrickC8254 wrote: ↑Rtings seems to give mediocore reviews about this TV,
I think at the same price point, this one on a different thread seems to be a better deal?
Here

Rtings reviewed it as the H8G which is the Q8G in Canada which is the WCG enabled version of the Q7G. It scored slightly higher than the TCL, has local dimming and Android. I’d say Hisense is a better deal (in fact rtings says the same thing on the TCL review page) but can’t really go wrong with either TV.

what is instore price?

Got the 55 inch for $517 on costco online last week. As a casual tv watcher, I've been very satisfied with it, especially the black levels and brightness (coming from almost 10 year old cheap Toshiba tv) but one minor gripe is the blooming. It might be my settings but it's not terrible. For the price, it's worth it.

How does the Q7G compare to the H78G which is ~$750?
https://www.amazon.ca/Hisense-65H78G-in ... B083SC7YKP

Is it worth the extra $150?

I honestly would not buy a 4K/HDR television without wide color gamut. Otherwise you have neutered the whole point of HDR and even better resolution. Low nit brightness you can still get away with because it'll still give you a better picture over SDR even if your set only does 400-600 nits which is barely qualifying for HDR. But no wide color gamut would be such a big no no, for me personally. Unless you only really need it for 4K computer resolution or smart features and have no real plans to watch 4K media or HDR stuff.

yycguy1 wrote: ↑ How does the Q7G compare to the H78G which is ~$750?
https://www.amazon.ca/Hisense-65H78G-in ... B083SC7YKP

Is it worth the extra $150?

There is the comparison chart in the web page you've referred to if you haven't seen that.

From what I can see, inclusion of HDR, WCG and probably higher count of local dimming zones compared to H78G.

PatrickC8254 wrote: ↑ Rtings seems to give mediocore reviews about this TV,
I think at the same price point, this one on a different thread seems to be a better deal?
Here

Rtings review for H8G is a lot more than mediocre. It definitely deserves to be consider decent. Given the price tag I think it’s pretty good.

Btw Rtings recently scaled down their scores so 7.8 should be around 8.1 previously.

gizmokrap wrote: ↑ There is the comparison chart in the web page you've referred to if you haven't seen that.

From what I can see, inclusion of HDR, WCG and probably higher count of local dimming zones compared to H78G.

Yeah I saw that chart but it doesn't have the Q7G. I guess the Q8G can be considered similar but don't think the Q7G has WCG.

I find Hisense model naming convention somewhat confusing and tough to find proper info on. For example, how similar are the H78G and the H8G?

I have the 55 inch Q7G for 517$ last week. Very happy with it such a huge jump on price for 65 inch though

We want a new TV for the basement and I'm really torn between this and the Q9G. The Q9G is such a large price jump and I'm not sure the differences in local dimming zones or 120hz panel are worth it. Can anyone sway me either way?

yycguy1 wrote: ↑ Yeah I saw that chart but it doesn't have the Q7G. I guess the Q8G can be considered similar but don't think the Q7G has WCG.

I find Hisense model naming convention somewhat confusing and tough to find proper info on. For example, how similar are the H78G and the H8G?

Difference between Q7G and Q8G are just WCG. Therefore, compared to H78G, Q7G has higher local dimming zones, and has HDR over H78G.

Redmask wrote: ↑ We want a new TV for the basement and I'm really torn between this and the Q9G. The Q9G is such a large price jump and I'm not sure the differences in local dimming zones or 120hz panel are worth it. Can anyone sway me either way?

I was considering 55Q9G as well but thinking about it, price jump from 55Q7G was about 600 bucks. Just for more local dimming zones, 120hz and WCG, it wasn't worth the extra 600 bucks to me if I'm just using this TV for movie watching, especially as a casual watcher, not someone who's obsessed with having a perfect picture quality. And let's be honest, for about 90% of the population, Q7G can give you a decent viewing experience. And you save about 600 bucks along the way for other stuff.

gizmokrap wrote: ↑ Difference between Q7G and Q8G are just WCG. Therefore, compared to H78G, Q7G has higher local dimming zones, and has HDR over H78G.

I don't think the H78G has FALD at all.
Q7G also has quantum dot tech.

gizmokrap wrote: ↑ I was considering 55Q9G as well but thinking about it, price jump from 55Q7G was about 600 bucks. Just for more local dimming zones, 120hz and WCG, it wasn't worth the extra 600 bucks to me if I'm just using this TV for movie watching, especially as a casual watcher, not someone who's obsessed with having a perfect picture quality. And let's be honest, for about 90% of the population, Q7G can give you a decent viewing experience. And you save about 600 bucks along the way for other stuff.

TV for the basement I would put size into the equation as well.

Redmask wrote: ↑ We want a new TV for the basement and I'm really torn between this and the Q9G. The Q9G is such a large price jump and I'm not sure the differences in local dimming zones or 120hz panel are worth it. Can anyone sway me either way?

What do you need the television for? To watch movies? Gaming? 4K/HDR content? It is more than just a few local dimming zones and 120hz. It is a superior television in all aspects. Not only will those additional dimming zones aka FALD at over 180 zones give you far more inky blacks, but a 120hz panel also means better refresh rates for gaming and sports content (even if you turn off motion smoothing/motionflow). It isn't HDMI 2.1 though so you won't get the next gen 4k 120hz benefits and VRR. However, the Q9G also consistently and easily hits over 1000-1100 nits brightness if not more. This is such a massive difference over the 400+ to 500+ the Q7G hits. You'll notice this as you watch Disney+ Dolby Vision content or Netflix HDR/DV content or even on UHD discs.

At the end of the day it really is for you to decide. Money reigns supreme at times. I have a flagship that hits 1100-1500 nits brightness in my living room whereas my bedroom tv is only about 400-450 nits. Huge difference which I notice. FALD is also noticeable against edge lit in room, but Q7G seems to have local dimming albeit much smaller scale.

Chewfam wrote: ↑ TV for the basement I would put size into the equation as well.

Yup. My TV is for the basement and got the 55 inch based on Rting's viewing distance calculator.

gizmokrap wrote: ↑ Yup. My TV is for the basement and got the 55 inch based on Rting's viewing distance calculator.

Just a recommendation so I would take it with a grain of salt. It all comes down to personal preference.
TV size seems high on the list of things people regret.

Harold91 wrote: ↑ the Q9G also consistently and easily hits over 1000-1100 nits brightness if not more. This is such a massive difference over the 400+ to 500+ the Q7G hits. You'll notice this as you watch Disney+ Dolby Vision content or Netflix HDR/DV content or even on UHD discs.

At the end of the day it really is for you to decide. Money reigns supreme at times. I have a flagship that hits 1100-1500 nits brightness in my living room whereas my bedroom tv is only about 400-450 nits.

You seem to be fanatical about your TVs. How much difference would the brightness really make? I've got the YV in the basement where in complete darkness, Q7G can almost blind me at times on bright scenes and almost as so on regular scenes as well. Would having a 1000 nit+ make that much of a difference?