I would go with the Sony right now if I had the money. Just for interest sake, it can be had for around $1700 including delivery if you live in the U.S. and around $2000 if you live in Canada (Ontario). That is for the KDS-60A3000. Although plasmas deliver a beautiful picture, they are way too expensive. I think the Sony delivers an outstanding picture.
I agree with all of this. I have the older sony 50A2000 and could not be happier. The projection system lends to a more film like picture. I see other TVs, like my parents LCD flat screen, and miss my beautiful picture. The 2.5 ms response times on these sets just about eliminates motion blur and I must admit that I have NEVER noticed motion blur on my set. The 10,000:1 contrast on these sets also affords for some pretty decent blacks.
The reporting of response time by Sony and others is misrepresenting. a 2.5ms response time indicates only the half cycle of response, so the time taken to change from one colour to neutral. Think of a sine wave and cut it in half as that is what they are reporting. The actual response time should be 5.0, which is still very fast but actually slower than most plasmas at 4.0
Also, when I was looking around I was told by an ISF calibrator that the Sony A2000 line did not properly do inverse telecine(3:2 pulldown) and had an inferior videoprocessor to that of JVC, PAnasonic, Mitsubishi, Samsung and the Sony XBR2 sets.
You probably will not notice at all, but the SD programming looks softer on the A2000 compared to the XBR series and the JVC HDILA.
Here is a couple links that shows the A2000 fails the 3:2 test and doesnt resolve every line of a 1080 test pattern, while the JVC HDILA does 3:2 and will show all 1080, albeit only thru HDMI inputs.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/Personally I would buy the Sony XBR or JVC HDILA over the A2000/A3000 sets. But my next 42" is gonna be a Panny plasma.
