I think they're all running the same Sony-designed Linux build anyway, with the same 25ms of lag (2015 'C' models had 35ms so it' a little better), don't trust their comparative specs sheets because most of the time the person in charge of editing the product description simply didn't fill the blanks, it's just confusing people.
Yes, it seems so that this is indeed an error. I have however contacted Sony about this anyway.
EDIT: yeah it's as he says; don't read too much in the '50Hz' and MotionFlow ratings.
It just means they're all standard 50/60Hz sets, and the MotionFlow figures are just hints about whether motion interpolation options are available in the settings or not.
IIRC 200 means there aren't any interpolation options at all, only the flickering/strobing blur reduction feature.
Starting with 400 you might have a 'clear motion' option somewhere in the settings, but it's something you have to confirm reading each exact model number's manual (either in .pdf or online, if you can find them) because the generic ones don't discriminate those little differences.
In any case motion interpolation is not useful for games, only for sports and/or movies.
To be perfectly honest I don't even necessarily care about the whole Motionflow thing at all. What I do care about however is if a company tries to flat out trick you into believing that you are paying for something which doesn't do anything, which is class-action-lawsuit material.
One major difference I've noticed is that they're using IPS panels now, but probably not with every size and model, that's also something not very clear in the specs and reviews.
Typically with Sony you'll want a VA (AMVA) panel, because they're not known to do well with IPS, well, not in the entry and mid-range levels at least.
Maybe it's not very clear, but very obvious. All those IPS panels reach around 1000:1 contrast whereas most VA have contrast above 3000:1. It gets even more obvious when testing the viewing angles.
For this year, Sony has gone full random with their panels. Out of the WD75, all of them have IPS except the 43" model. The WD65 are VA, however the panels are pretty meh.
In any case I doubt we'll ever see sub-1 frame 1080p Sony sets like the 2013~early2015 again, that category is slowly dying and many name brands will probably discontinue their Full-HD category soon.
Now this is something i wanna get into a bit more, as I am right now in the midst of trying to buy myself a new TV and for the last 3 days i spent many hours in different electronics shops looking for candidates.
Now for the lag - as far as this certainly is one of the things i look at first when researching a new TV, i wouldn't call it a dealbreaker. Response time is a dealbreaker for me though and i have to say the response times of this years sets are certainly concerning.
I wouldn't really call sub 1-frame sets a "category". I am convinced that this was a happy accident by Sony however the fact that this "feature" wasn't used to advertise them makes me believe that they never really cared for it. Furthermore, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Sony "is doing something wrong" now that their sets are slower.
Some entry-level Samsung 4K have lag under 20ms and from what we've seen (little but heh) they are more flexible with things like the OSSC's linetriple mode (when the Sony Full-HD sets have a history of flat out rejecting it).
While I think this topic would really benefit from a split, i'll post here anyway.
Yes - there are two interesting midrangers by Samsung this year - the K5500 (K5600) and the KU6000 (KU6200). The first is a FHD set, the second a UHD one, both have measured lag below 20ms, both have VA panels and very high contrast and great blacks.
In fact I am trying to decide between the Sony WD75 and one of those Samsungs and boy is that difficult. While on paper both those Samsung sets are completely crushing the Sony, comparing them live is a whole other story.
First of all, although obviously all the TVs in shops are set to full brightness and have all their features switched on, I could every time pin-point which one is the Sony WD75 from afar. While being dimmer and having 1/4 of the contrast of the Samsungs, the Sony simply "pops" with a rich and vibrant picture. Of course this is also thanks to artificial boosting, but it just looks much better and not so crude and "in your face" as the korean sets. The KU6000 weirdly enough looks the worst.
Secondly, as a TV is basically a piece of furniture, imho it has to be easthetically pleasing and solid as well. And boy are those Samsungs bad. The KU6000 is so-so with the plastic at least not trying to imitate metal, but it has some glossy accents on the stand and bezel which look awful. The K5500 doesn't have those glossy details on the bezel, but instead has the ugliest, and shiniest, grey plastic back plate i have ever seen and it's super prone to scratching as well. The Sony is simply beautiful. The thin aluminium bezels together with the thin panel make it stand out a lot. I would say that even the plastic WD65 are nicer than the Samsungs.
Furthermore - I am not knowledgeable enough to say if this is just an effect but although the Sony is glossier than the Samsungs (in fact it's very glossy) i find that it actually reflects less and looks better in a very bright environment. Reflections from lamps where pretty local, whereas on the koreans it kind of "spread" on the panel.
Last but not least - the blacks. While obviously the Sony lacks very deep blacks i have to say that it still goes very dark for an IPS (apparently x900c levels). And with the loss of blacks you gain the viewing angles. The Samsungs deteoriate so fast that I could imagine simply laying down on the couch instead of sitting in the middle might lower the experience. The Sony does a great job with that:
Last but not least during the last few days I started to doubt reviews, especially the "professional" ones. And while I am a fan of measurable data and objective tests it became apparent that these are flawed as well.
Take for example, the black uniformity tests for the K5500:https://tweakers.net/reviews/4753/7/hdtvs-rond-de-600-euro-vier-keer-49-inch-getest-beeldeigenschappen.htmlhttp://opinioteca.com/tvs/analisis/samsung/k5500/
You can clearly see the backlight bleeding on the Samsung in the Tweakers review and they also mention this in the review. Opinioteca gives it a much higher score in terms of black uniformity.
Or the judder tests in these two reviews:http://opinioteca.com/tvs/analisis/samsung/ku6000/http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/ku6300
While Rtings says it fails the judder test, Opinioteca says it passes. By no means do I want to discredit one or the other reviewer but I would refrain from using only one particular source for all reviews.
The KU6000 is very tempting, but there is also another argument against it which is a bit personal: I know that once I will have a 4K screen i will try to play all games and watch all the movies in 4k which will make the rest of my setup (most importantly - my gaming PC) obsolete.
I also haven't talked about two arguments which are less important for me but might be for someone else. First - connections. There is no Euro / Scart nor Headphone out on the Samsungs. Second - scaling. While Sony has a good reputation with their scaling engines, Samsung doesn't really so. I will feed my TV mostly FHD / UHD material from a PC, consoles and maybe an OSSC in the future so both those differences aren't very important to me.
So, yeah, basically