Hot Deals

[London Drugs] Samsung 75-in QLED 8K Smart TV - open box ($4499.99)

  • Last Updated:
  • May 24th, 2020 10:45 am
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 30, 2005
1917 posts
239 upvotes
Ottawa
Really good deal on this TV.

Not sure there's much of a point to be honest. Good luck finding 8K content though. Most TV content is still just HD.
Sr. Member
Sep 2, 2003
714 posts
92 upvotes
GTA
pooper wrote: So you'd pay 4.5k to get the thing shipped via third party thug-a-drop™
Thanks but no banana.
I'm more curious about the "thug-a-drop" part, what are you saying or implying here?
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
26286 posts
6553 upvotes
PannTher wrote: You're barely going to notice a difference with 8k.
People said the exact same thing when 4K TVs debuted. Now basically no one would buy a main TV that's less than 4K as economies of scale have come into play and all but the cheapest of TVs (and mostly in the 40" and below category) are anything less. Regardless of whether it "makes a difference" it's the "next big thing" being pushed by TV makers...so people keep buying TVs. I'm not defending 8K as being something amazing or anything but within a few years most TVs will be 8K so don't matter if it "makes a difference" or not, it's just the way it will be.
PannTher wrote: But more importantly,

Rtings has the B9 OLED at significantly better score:
LOL Rtings scores :lol: Get outta here with the Rtings number scores, they don't mean much. Read the other thread where I explained this or read the countless review comments on Rtings itself. Rtings is a great resource, don't get me wrong, but the number scores are not really that meaningful. The B9 has really poor HDR performance, for example and the Q900R kills it in brightness. The Q900R basically has every "2.1 feature" people are after including HFR, which the B9 does not support.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying this 8K TV is really worth buying but it is a deal as posted by OP. 8K has a bunch of other issues after the big cost. Best one, IMO, is not just that there's not 8K content or good ways to get 8K to the TV to begin with, but look at early 4K TVs. They lack so many features of later 4K sets. Earliest ones lack more recent HDCP support so can't even play UHD BDs without having to go to workarounds. Not only that, the early ones don't have HDR support and certainly not DV support either. I think some of them might not even have HDMI 2.0, but don't quote me on that. In other words buying a 4K TV back with the first ones was a bad idea--extremely high price and you wouldn't want to own or buy one of those today. Same for buying an 8K TV today. By the time 3-5 years go by there will be new content protection standards, new features, etc. that your 2019 8K TV does not support and will never support. You paid $4500 for it and yes it was a deal at that price at the time, but FFW to then and a TV with the same performance and support for all the other things they invariably will add, and cost about half that.

So being an "early adopter" is not a good idea IMO. But thumbs up to thread and OP because, regardless, it's still a deal for this TV.
[OP]
Member
Feb 17, 2011
488 posts
127 upvotes
Calgary
ES_Revenge wrote: The B9 has really poor HDR performance, for example and the Q900R kills it in brightness. The Q900R basically has every "2.1 feature" people are after including HFR, which the B9 does not support.
...
But thumbs up to thread and OP because, regardless, it's still a deal for this TV.
Thanks for the discussion. This is an early model 8K, but that doesn't equate to an entry-level. This is a premium tv with a premium price.

It does have some nice features that the Sony X950G doesn't -- like native HDMI 2.1 support. Sony isn't going to release an official update to support it, even though the hardware is capable. If they were, Sony wouldn't be moving to block "vulnerabilities" of firmware that let people put 950H firmware on the tv. Anyone who wants is gaming is going to want VRR, which is a likely feature of the PS5 and Xbox Series X.

The LG B9 does have native HDMI 2.1 support as well as VRR and a fantastic picture. However, there is the issue of burn-in (cue debate) as well as degradation of OLED brightness and colour over time. That's one reason that frequent gamers have sometimes opted for televisions like the Sony.

Lastly, I find it ironic that this deal gets downvoted like crazy when it is a *legitimate* deal on an 8K television at 40% off. On the same day, a thread is started for a $10k CPU (%14 off) and it gets upvotes. Does anyone need a 64 core AMD EPYC 7742?

C'mon RedFlagDeals, you're better than this!
42kht3.jpg
Deal Fanatic
Jul 22, 2007
5540 posts
4261 upvotes
Calgary
revjoeyjohn wrote: Sorry. When you were complaining about shipping, I thought your complaint was about shipping. I should have inferred it was that there is very little 8K content out there.

It's about 8K. Yes. It's a bragging item. Yep. Will 8K content continue to be added. Un-huh.
By the time you have 1% of your content available as 8k, this tv will be 10 years old.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 29, 2007
3277 posts
2461 upvotes
No Bum Deals
revjoeyjohn wrote:
Lastly, I find it ironic that this deal gets downvoted like crazy when it is a *legitimate* deal on an 8K television at 40% off. On the same day, a thread is started for a $10k CPU (%14 off) and it gets upvotes. Does anyone need a 64 core AMD EPYC 7742?
People want the CPU. They do not want this TV. Perhaps your version of reality does not match the general consensus.
There are also 3 units still in online stock.
🢂 2x Koodo 35/5 - 1x Koodo 39/10 - 1x Fido 0/3 🢀
Sr. Member
Dec 16, 2010
695 posts
538 upvotes
Canada
I hear you and there's no denying that it's a nice TV. However as said, the B9 has HDMI 2.1 and a big deal to me is Dolby Vision over Samsung's proprietary HDR+.

Also, when it comes to that's what people said about 1080p and 4k, I'm going to have to disagree. Some people said that there was not much of a difference but many people said there was. There is a discernable difference to the human eye on 4k over 1080p. However, for a 75 inch TV and sitting 10 feet away or so, you will not see a difference.from 4k to 8k. Again, I recommend you watch the video. Samsung's ancient LCD technology does not have the contrast between pixels and therefore does not look as sharp as the OLED.

I've had three OLEDs now and have never had issues with burn in and I have three kids that left them on.

The B9 might not get as bright but there are comparisons on that as well. I have a darker room and have my brightness turned down because of how bright the B9 gets. I guess if you're in a very bright room, the Samsung may make sense, but not too many 75 inch TVs in a main room as opposed to a theatre type room? I don't have those stats to really know.

Again man, it's a nice TV, but I personally don't think it's a good deal especially as an OB. If it was new, there are many people that would be interested in the benefits of Samsung, but I think that's why you're not getting the upvotes you hoped for. I neither upvoted nor downvoted but be happy with your purchase. It's a nice TV.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
4067 posts
1511 upvotes
What? No, do not waste your money on this. Get a 77" OLED or a proper Sony Master Series (Z9G or Z7F) if you are spending this much.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
4067 posts
1511 upvotes
PannTher wrote: I hear you and there's no denying that it's a nice TV. However as said, the B9 has HDMI 2.1 and a big deal to me is Dolby Vision over Samsung's proprietary HDR+.

Also, when it comes to that's what people said about 1080p and 4k, I'm going to have to disagree. Some people said that there was not much of a difference but many people said there was. There is a discernable difference to the human eye on 4k over 1080p. However, for a 75 inch TV and sitting 10 feet away or so, you will not see a difference.from 4k to 8k. Again, I recommend you watch the video. Samsung's ancient LCD technology does not have the contrast between pixels and therefore does not look as sharp as the OLED.

I've had three OLEDs now and have never had issues with burn in and I have three kids that left them on.

The B9 might not get as bright but there are comparisons on that as well. I have a darker room and have my brightness turned down because of how bright the B9 gets. I guess if you're in a very bright room, the Samsung may make sense, but not too many 75 inch TVs in a main room as opposed to a theatre type room? I don't have those stats to really know.

Again man, it's a nice TV, but I personally don't think it's a good deal especially as an OB. If it was new, there are many people that would be interested in the benefits of Samsung, but I think that's why you're not getting the upvotes you hoped for. I neither upvoted nor downvoted but be happy with your purchase. It's a nice TV.
Pssst: HDR10/HDR10+ is the open standard :). By the way, the brightness is not just about bright rooms. It's for specular highlights in HDR and colour volume. Mad Max: Fury Road HDR is mastered to something like 2,000 nits.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
26286 posts
6553 upvotes
PannTher wrote: I hear you and there's no denying that it's a nice TV. However as said, the B9 has HDMI 2.1 and a big deal to me is Dolby Vision
Stop right there. B9 is garbanzo beans for HDR. Don't give a shit what else there is about OLED. B9 is garbage for HDR. End of.
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2004
26286 posts
6553 upvotes
revjoeyjohn wrote: Thanks for the discussion. This is an early model 8K, but that doesn't equate to an entry-level. This is a premium tv with a premium price.

It does have some nice features that the Sony X950G doesn't -- like native HDMI 2.1 support. Sony isn't going to release an official update to support it, even though the hardware is capable. If they were, Sony wouldn't be moving to block "vulnerabilities" of firmware that let people put 950H firmware on the tv. Anyone who wants is gaming is going to want VRR, which is a likely feature of the PS5 and Xbox Series X.
Dunno how Sony got into this lol. But this is an 8K TV--as you said yourself a 4K doesn't compare to this. Have to compare to Z9G or newer/better. Q900R has its merits, it's an 8K display, there's no denying that. It's worth the $4.5k but at this point in time it's gonna just come back to bite you like it did with ppl that bought the first 1080p sets, that bought the first 4K sets. Doesn't really make any sense IMO. Just like microLED seems amazing right now but unless you're rich forget about it. We don't even know the real trade-offs of microLED TBH. OLED was supposed to be "the one to rule them all" yet it was not even close to that; same can be said for microLED until it proves otherwise.

Anyway if you want an amazing TV and budget is not really a concern...here you go! Q900R...the criticisms are like water off a duck's back!
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
4067 posts
1511 upvotes
ES_Revenge wrote: Dunno how Sony got into this lol. But this is an 8K TV--as you said yourself a 4K doesn't compare to this. Have to compare to Z9G or newer/better. Q900R has its merits, it's an 8K display, there's no denying that. It's worth the $4.5k but at this point in time it's gonna just come back to bite you like it did with ppl that bought the first 1080p sets, that bought the first 4K sets. Doesn't really make any sense IMO. Just like microLED seems amazing right now but unless you're rich forget about it. We don't even know the real trade-offs of microLED TBH. OLED was supposed to be "the one to rule them all" yet it was not even close to that; same can be said for microLED until it proves otherwise.

Anyway if you want an amazing TV and budget is not really a concern...here you go! Q900R...the criticisms are like water off a duck's back!
I would still go with a 77" OLED or Z9G if you have that much to spend. The extra resolution isn't going to matter with existing content (even with upscaling) unless you are sitting insanely close. Might as well get a 77" Panasonic HZ1000/HZ2000 for ultimate contrast, colour accuracy and motion handling or the Z9G for stomping all over any other TV for HDR content.
Last edited by unshavenyak on May 23rd, 2020 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sr. Member
Jun 11, 2016
808 posts
1128 upvotes
UnderKitten wrote: Kind of early for 8k. There isnt even much of 4k out there.
Forget 8k or 4k...am still on 720p (full disclosure the Sony Bravia bought in 2007 refuses to die...)
Last edited by KravenHead on May 23rd, 2020 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[OP]
Member
Feb 17, 2011
488 posts
127 upvotes
Calgary
I took a look at this in store. Up close, I can see a difference in pixel size between a 75" 4k and this 8k. A few feet back and with upscaled store NASCAR loops, the quality looks much the same as the 4k sets.

It's a seriously nice tv, though.
Deal Addict
Dec 28, 2005
4067 posts
1511 upvotes
KravenHead wrote: Forget 8k...am still on 720p
Don't worry. That resolution is a waste right now at distances most people view. I had an 8k TV in my hotel room in Tokyo and we had to sit almost right in front of the cabinet to notice the added resolution.

Top