Im glad the OP already made his economical choice!
A lot of incorrect information here.
"Current 2.5k+ plasmas may be better then 500-1.5k led"
Current $1k plasmas are better than $3k+ LEDs...I will use Panasonic as an example here. You can get a 50" Panasonic plasma (50ST50) for $1k at best buy and this is rated the 3rd best TV on CNET which dominates every LED tv out there other than the Sharp Elite.
"led consume less power, last longer and are cheaper then plasma not to mention very thin and light"
LEDS do not last longer than Panasonic plasmas, are not cheaper, and the current plasmas are only 2" thick.
The new phosphors that Panasonic uses in their Neo Plasmas incorporate the highest technology yet. This allows up to 100,000 hours of panel life before the brightness is decreased in half. According to Panasonic, this is 30 years of 8hrs of viewing a day. In terms of consumption, CNET did a review last year showing how monthly costs are only a few dollars of a difference with LEDs and Plasmas, but in the end, LEDs do consume less power overall.
"but is that worth reflection, shorter life span, less viewing angles, thick/weight and more money to operate"
Reflection was an issue in the past. Now, Panasonic uses a Louver filter that acts as an anti-reflective screen thus glare is not an issue.
Less viewing angles is completely false. Plasmas are the only televisions that have true 180 degree viewing angles; this is because of their gas system. LEDs will claim 178 degrees, but when you go to the side, the colors wash out. Not to mention how bad ghosting and motion blur is on LEDs...they claim 120Hz-480Hz that will eliminate motion blur, but as soon as you pop in an action movie or watch sports...ghosting is still there.
Plasmas use a sub-field 600Hz driver that virtually have 0 motion blur.
Shorter life span is false as I stated above, and Panasonic now has a No Signal monitor that if there is no activity, the power will turn off thus saving life span. Also, burn-ins are no longer an issue.
So how are plasmas more money to operate? They are cheaper, last just as long if not longer, and have truer, more natural colors with the deepest blacks and 0 motion blur. They also have all the SMART features such as built-in apps, and built-in WiFi.
Also, having worked in the industry, Ive noticed LED TVs have more of a return-back rate than plasmas, as most manufactures use Edge-lit LEDs and when one LED bulb goes out, the whole row needs to be replaced and not to mention you get a little black or white spot on the tv. That is why back-light individual LEDs are much better such as the ELITE.
"FYI Sharp led elite was rated a 10 in picture quality as was your coveted Panasonic Tc plasma"
Im not sure where you got this information?
Currently on CNET, the sharp LED elite was rated 4 stars and the 2nd best TV with a $5.3k price tag...vs their #1 TV the Panasonic VT50 with 4 1/2 stars and a $1.9k price tag.
I sound like a Panasonic rep lol but they are the best TVs, second to RUNKO plasmas which are $$$. A lot of information here, but I hope someone reads this and realizes how plasmas are under-rated and still looked upon as if they have problems like they did in the past. They don't, and they are currently the best TVs for the best price.
Of course you oldies with plasmas are going to stick up for them cuz you already have them and when you bought them they were the best...... I have both lcd backlit and lcd led, led is better then the lcd, and as far as plasma my dads reflects light like crazy, and my led doesn't have blue white, white is solid white and there is no blur f1 looks insanely perfect....
Current 2.5k+ plasmas may be better then 500-1.5k led but the point of this thread is to lead the op to the best sense of "economical quality," led consume less power, last longer and are cheaper then plasma not to mention very thin and light, thus are the best option for him.
Plasma vs led in a color and contrast sence may be different, they may edge out the lcd displays with led backlit but is that worth reflection, shorter life span, less viewing angles, thick/weight and more money to operate.....?
Besides he already made his mind up, current market analysis points the avg consumer toward led.
FYI Sharp led elite was rated a 10 in picture quality as was your coveted Panasonic Tc plasma.
Cheers mates.
_________________________________________________________________________
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?504763-Cheap-plants-less-nitrate!-POTHOS
*Go S. Vettel #1 RBR! 3 BACK TO BACK WDC AND CONSTRUCTERS!
A lot of incorrect information here.
"Current 2.5k+ plasmas may be better then 500-1.5k led"
Current $1k plasmas are better than $3k+ LEDs...I will use Panasonic as an example here. You can get a 50" Panasonic plasma (50ST50) for $1k at best buy and this is rated the 3rd best TV on CNET which dominates every LED tv out there other than the Sharp Elite.
"led consume less power, last longer and are cheaper then plasma not to mention very thin and light"
LEDS do not last longer than Panasonic plasmas, are not cheaper, and the current plasmas are only 2" thick.
The new phosphors that Panasonic uses in their Neo Plasmas incorporate the highest technology yet. This allows up to 100,000 hours of panel life before the brightness is decreased in half. According to Panasonic, this is 30 years of 8hrs of viewing a day. In terms of consumption, CNET did a review last year showing how monthly costs are only a few dollars of a difference with LEDs and Plasmas, but in the end, LEDs do consume less power overall.
"but is that worth reflection, shorter life span, less viewing angles, thick/weight and more money to operate"
Reflection was an issue in the past. Now, Panasonic uses a Louver filter that acts as an anti-reflective screen thus glare is not an issue.
Less viewing angles is completely false. Plasmas are the only televisions that have true 180 degree viewing angles; this is because of their gas system. LEDs will claim 178 degrees, but when you go to the side, the colors wash out. Not to mention how bad ghosting and motion blur is on LEDs...they claim 120Hz-480Hz that will eliminate motion blur, but as soon as you pop in an action movie or watch sports...ghosting is still there.
Plasmas use a sub-field 600Hz driver that virtually have 0 motion blur.
Shorter life span is false as I stated above, and Panasonic now has a No Signal monitor that if there is no activity, the power will turn off thus saving life span. Also, burn-ins are no longer an issue.
So how are plasmas more money to operate? They are cheaper, last just as long if not longer, and have truer, more natural colors with the deepest blacks and 0 motion blur. They also have all the SMART features such as built-in apps, and built-in WiFi.
Also, having worked in the industry, Ive noticed LED TVs have more of a return-back rate than plasmas, as most manufactures use Edge-lit LEDs and when one LED bulb goes out, the whole row needs to be replaced and not to mention you get a little black or white spot on the tv. That is why back-light individual LEDs are much better such as the ELITE.
"FYI Sharp led elite was rated a 10 in picture quality as was your coveted Panasonic Tc plasma"
Im not sure where you got this information?
Currently on CNET, the sharp LED elite was rated 4 stars and the 2nd best TV with a $5.3k price tag...vs their #1 TV the Panasonic VT50 with 4 1/2 stars and a $1.9k price tag.
I sound like a Panasonic rep lol but they are the best TVs, second to RUNKO plasmas which are $$$. A lot of information here, but I hope someone reads this and realizes how plasmas are under-rated and still looked upon as if they have problems like they did in the past. They don't, and they are currently the best TVs for the best price.
You must have not read anything I just posted, nor does it seem like you have any knowledge about televisions. What you just stated is all opinion. 
