I want to buy my 1st LED Tv and I am looking for 40 and this TV 42EX410 LED TV comes at good price and is 42 Inch, so extra 2 inch impresses me over 40 Inch models from Sony and Samsung. However, this TV is very basic and has 60 60 Hz refresh rate as against 120 Hz and above offered by many new LED Tvs now a days. I read through the post explaining the difference, and know that 120 is better, but still not sure how much of a big deal it is to have 60 Hz in real viewing performance? Can some one help? Also how is this TV, can some TV expert review this for me and suggest ?

In truth you need to go and compare the sets you like side by side to make your own mind up.
Facts, figures and reviews are all well and good, but you can't beat personal experience.

I'm a TV repair technician and used to do TV installs.

120 Hz makes the biggest difference with movies. Pretty much everything else has some processing done to it, that some people do not like the look of. As Curlyben mentioned, you are better off going and comparing the sets yourself at an electronics store that has those sets on display.

Personally, after having gone to a 120 Hz set, I will never go back. I'm too used to the smooth motion I get from my movies. If you are doing Blu-ray and plan to watch a lot of movies, then you may want to lean more towards 120 Hz.

Thanks for the reply... I checked this model 42Ex410 side by side with other LEDs having 120 Hz and above refresh rate (or motion index as some of them call... ), and I did not find any difference... in fact Sony and Samsung stood out of rest of the LEDs in terms of picture quality, including this set. However my concern was, all these TV dealers, they only play HD media and they normally look very good irespective of the TVs... though I must admit that the video they were playing had a lot of motion (in fact it was Shakira's video, so u can expectr a lot of motion) and it looked perfect... But I am not sure about how the SD picture will apear and the shops do not have any SD content to play... Hence thought of checking with experts on this model in specific.
Also is it too much of risk in buying a 42 inch LED from SONY, when they do not make any 42 inch LEDs... and this model being very new toi market, is it risky to go for it considering after sales (in the worst situation assuming this model do not click in market)? Can you throw your view on this ?

Chances are the size difference will only cause any problems if you ever need the panel replaced. Which if that's the case, the TV is not worth fixing either way. Panels are the majority of the cost of the TV and fixing a panel usually costs as much or more as buying a new comparable TV.

If you have a Best Buy near by, you should be able to change the channel on the TV to an SD channel. It's still digital, but the other channel will be standard definition. Best Buy uses an aerial feed.

Purchase from a retailer that you know the return policy with, that way if you have any problems initially or you are unhappy with it, you can return the TV.

To bring some twist , Can you suggest which TV I should buy assuming cost not a concern...
Sony LED KDL 40EX720 & LG 42LW5700

Both are 3D Tvs and LG comes with Passive 3D Technology and Sony with Active.
LG offering 4 goggles and Sony 2 Goggles.
LGs goggles - cheap, Sony - expensive

What is your suggestion ?

Active shutter 3D is better. Active actually provides HD picture quality with the 3D picture. LG's passive 3D works by cutting the resolution in half and using half the lines for one eye and the other half for the other eye. The result is a 3D image that is not full HD.

I would go with the Sony over the LG if price is no concern.

Thanks for the quick response.
1) Does Active 3D put strain on eyes compared to Passive or both are same in terms of eye strain ?
2) Does Active 3D gives more depth of 3D picture compared to Passive or both are same ?

1) Different people experience it differently. I drive around all day wearing polarized sunglasses so I am used to looking through polarized lenses. From what I've heard from other people the passive is less annoying (no batteries to charge/replace) and is less of a strain on their eyes. But both are polarized lenses, and both seem to add a "shiny" effect to the image.

2) Active seems to give more depth. Also, the further back you are, the more exaggerated the effect is. Although to be honest, it could have been the content that I was watching. The content that I used to compare active vs passive was not the same between the two. LG had their own special content on their displays, as did Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic.

Hi ALL/Sandesh,
Which TV you bought finally, I am also looking for a 42 inch led TV and stuck between 42ex410 and LG's 42LV3500.
Can any one suggest which one is good buy.