Panasonic TX-40EX600B review
|Review: August 2017|
Last updated August 2017
In a nutshell: The Panasonic TX-40EX600B is a basic 4K HDR TV, and the price has now fallen to a fair level. But even at £500, we don't rate it too highly. From the design to the picture quality, you'll find better elsewhere.
Panasonic EX600 40" model
Panasonic TX-40EX600B features include:
- 40 inch LED-backlit UHD screen
- 3,840 x 2,160 resolution
- 1300Hz Back Light Motion rate
- Bright Panel
- High Contrast
- Adaptive Backlight Dimming
- Picture modes: Dynamic, Normal, Cinema, True Cinema, Custom
- my Home Screen 2.0 Smart TV
- Audio: Full Range stereo speakers (10W x 2), VR-Audio True surround sound
- Connectivity: Wi-Fi, Ethernet (LAN) x 1, HDMI x 3 (ARC support x 1), USB x 2, headphone x 1, shared component/composite input x 1, digital audio out (optical) x 1, CI (Common Interface 1.3), DLNA, Easy Mirroring
- Standard remote control
- Energy efficiency class: A
- Typical power consumption: 63W - 106W
- Size without stand (WxHxD): 899 x 518 x 65 mm
- Size with stand (WxHxD): 899 x 573 x 351 mm
Got a question? This is the place to ask it!
Please don't ask a question that has already been asked. Duplicates will be removed.
40"panel type is supposed to be VA instead of IPS (for the 49"), so withe better blacks and better contrast (even if with narrower viewing angles). Isn't it True ?
Asked by Boulga
on 4th Aug 2017
Panasonic TX-40EX600B user reviews
Love this product? Hate it? Please share your experiences to help other people choose the product that's best for them. Please do not review this product if you have not used it, and please ask questions in our User Questions section above. Please do not use swear words or offensive language, and please, no advertising!
Average rating from 1 review:
Reviewed by Tom
on 26th Aug 2017
I know a fair bit about TV's and I have to say having inspected this TV in PCWorld I was blown away by the smooth motion,deep blacks and vibrant colours. I would say it has a VA type panel.At this size I think 4K is redundant but nontheless I am surprised by S21's conclusions.