LG C5 vs Sony Bravia 8: which OLED TV should you buy?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Screen size: 65in (also available in 42in, 48in, 55in, 77in, 83in)HDMI inputs: x4 (4 x 48Gbps HDMI 2.1)Gaming features: 4K/120Hz, 4K/144Hz, VRR, ALLM, Dolby Vision game mode, HGiGDimensions (hwd, without stand): 83 x 144 x 4.5cm
This is a big improvement on the C3. It's brighter and sharper, with richer tones and more vibrant colours. It can't compete with the stunning brightness of the G4, but then it is a fair bit cheaper. We expect that price to tumble soon, too.
View Deal
Screen size: 65in (also available in 55in, 77in, 83in and 97in)HDMI inputs: x4 (4 x 48Gbps HDMI 2.1)Gaming features: 4K/120Hz, 4K/144Hz, VRR, ALLM, Dolby Vision game mode, HGiGDimensions (hwd, without stand): 145 x 84 x 5.7cm
Once again, the MLA-boosted screen of LG's G-Series model has brightness to spare, and easily competes with the best premium TVs from rival brands. It's notably more vibrant in darker scenes, and while the audio still leaves a lot to be desired, that's easily fixed with a soundbar.
View Deal
There's never been a better time to buy one of the best TVs. With competition hotting up from every angle, there's no shortage of premium screens vying for that coveted spot in your living room.
If you've done some research, chances are you've probably got some OLED offerings from LG and Sony on your shortlist, which is why we're comparing the LG C5 against the Sony Bravia 8 – two top-notch OLED TVs that have plenty going for them.
We've thoroughly tested both models to deliver an in-depth comparison – the only thing we don't know at the time of writing is the price of the LG C5, but we'll be sure to update this feature as soon as we're graced with that information.
OLED TV pricing varies considerably throughout the year, with manufacturers following different approaches to discounting that can significantly impact value.
For context, the Sony Bravia 8 launched with these prices across its size range:
Sony Bravia 8 55-inch: £2199 / $2000 / AU$3495
Sony Bravia 8 65-inch: £2699 / $2800 / AU$4495
Sony Bravia 8 77-inch: £3999 / $3900 / AU$6995
While these figures represented a reduction from the A80L's launch prices, they positioned the Bravia 8 at a higher price point than comparable LG models. The pricing gap between Sony and LG models has been observed across multiple generations of their respective OLED lineups.
For the LG C5, while official pricing hasn't been announced yet, we can look to the C4's launch prices for guidance:
LG C4 42-inch: £1400 / $1499 / AU$2199
LG C4 48-inch: £1500 / $1599 / AU$2499
LG C4 55-inch: £1900 / $1999 / AU$3299
LG C4 65-inch: £2700 / $2699 / AU$4299
LG C4 77-inch: £3800 / $3699 / AU$5999
LG C4 83-inch: £6000 / $5399 / AU$7999
The C4 launched at lower prices than the C3 in the UK and Australia, which suggests LG may continue this competitive approach with the C5.
A significant advantage for the LG C5 is its broader size range – offering models from 42 inches up to 83 inches. This variety provides options for diverse living spaces and budgets that the Bravia 8, which starts at 55 inches, simply can't match.
Both manufacturers offer price reductions throughout the product lifecycle, particularly during major sales events. Based on previous generations, we expect both TVs to see substantial discounts, with the LG potentially reaching more accessible price points.
The Sony Bravia 8 maintains the elegant aesthetics of its predecessor, the A80L. It has a rather fetching textured pattern on the rear panel that's been refined to sit more flush against walls when mounted, and the foot stands have been thoughtfully redesigned with a flatter top and slimmer profile to better accommodate soundbars.
These feet offer multiple position options too – they can be placed centrally or at the corners, and at two different heights, providing versatility for different furniture and audio setups.
LG has largely stuck with the C4's design language for its C5 model – namely, a super-slim profile for most of the chassis, with a modest enclosure housing connections and processing components at the bottom of the rear panel.
The 55-inch C5 we reviewed features narrow bezels and a central pedestal stand that, while stylish, may limit soundbar placement options due to its outward taper. Larger models of the C5 have a different stand design where this won't be as much of an issue
When it comes to remotes, Sony includes a plastic controller that, while lacking the premium feel of some competitors, does offer a backlight and a well-designed button layout.
LG's Magic Remote adds a new AI shortcut button and updated input functionality, but frustratingly still lacks backlit buttons – a surprising omission at this price point.
The Bravia 8 packs the power of Sony's formidable Bravia XR processor, which uses AI smarts to enhance picture processing for more authentic visuals. While it doesn't feature cutting-edge MLA, 4th Gen OLED or QD-OLED technology, Sony claims a 10% increase in panel brightness over its own A80L model.
LG's C5, on the other hand, is powered by the Alpha 9 Gen 8 processor, which also has AI-enhanced processing in its arsenal. Like the Bravia 8, the C5 sticks with conventional WOLED technology rather than adopting the newer MLA or LG's own four-stack panels found in premium models like the LG G5.
Still, LG claims brightness improvements over the C4, achieved through its Brightness Booster technology, rather than physical panel enhancements like a heatsink.
As for gaming, the LG C5 maintains LG's excellent credentials with four HDMI 2.1 ports supporting 4K/144Hz, VRR, ALLM, and Dolby Vision gaming – one of the most complete gaming packages available on any TV.
The Bravia 8 offers solid gaming support but with a key limitation – only two of its four HDMI inputs meet the HDMI 2.1 standard, and one of those doubles as the eARC connection. The TV supports 4K/120Hz (rather than 144Hz), VRR, ALLM, and Dolby Vision gaming.
On the OS front, the C5 runs webOS 25, LG's latest smart platform. This iteration introduces enhanced AI features, including an intuitive chatbot for troubleshooting and settings adjustments via natural language commands. The platform also adds voice profile recognition and gaming-focused apps like the Xbox app for cloud gaming.
Sony opts for Google TV, providing access to a comprehensive range of streaming services including UK-specific options like BBC iPlayer, ITV X, Channel 4, and Channel 5. The platform is well-designed and responsive, making content discovery relatively straightforward.
Both TVs support HDR10, HLG, and Dolby Vision formats, though neither offers HDR10+. Both also include Dolby Atmos compatibility through their respective eARC connections.
Both televisions deliver exceptional picture quality with 4K HDR content, though with slightly different characteristics that may appeal to different viewers.
The Sony Bravia 8, for instance, excels in delivering a wonderfully natural image with exceptional motion handling. Its picture is remarkably sharp with outstanding light control that creates a compelling sense of three-dimensionality.
The Bravia 8 handles skin tones with a touch more red than its predecessor, resulting in more lifelike human subjects. Black levels remain outstanding too, with excellent shadow detail, while highlights maintain impressive detail rather than clipping to white.
The LG C5, in contrast, offers a richly saturated picture that balances vibrancy with authenticity. Its colours appear punchy and dynamic without crossing into artificiality, with particularly strong performance in low-light scenes where colour volume remains impressive.
The picture exhibits excellent solidity and three-dimensionality, with subjects clearly delineated against backgrounds without appearing artificially enhanced. The C5's brightness improvements are most noticeable in highlight details, where it retains more information in the brightest portions of the image.
As for Dolby Vision content, both TVs shine. The Bravia 8 delivers a compelling image in Dolby Vision Bright mode, with the dynamic metadata helping to optimize scene-by-scene performance. The C5 handles the format equally well, with its Filmmaker Mode now supporting Dolby Vision for the most accurate presentation.
For HD and SDR content, both televisions perform admirably, though with slight differences in approach.
The Bravia 8 upscales Full HD material with excellent sharpness while maintaining the natural film grain when present. However, some black crush can occur in particularly dark scenes, slightly compromising shadow detail.
The LG C5 handles upscaling with impressive retention of detail, avoiding unwanted artifacts or noise in challenging content. Fabric textures and subtle details remain clearly visible, and the TV's enhanced brightness capabilities add impact even to standard dynamic range content.
Neither TV will replace a dedicated sound system, but there are notable differences in their audio capabilities.
The Sony Bravia 8 uses the company's Acoustic Surface Audio+ technology, which uses actuators to vibrate the entire screen to generate sound. While slightly bass-light compared to some competitors, it offers excellent control and precision.
The sound follows on-screen action with remarkable accuracy, creating a spacious and immersive audio experience despite the physical limitations of TV speakers.
The LG C5 delivers acceptable audio for casual viewing with clear dialogue reproduction.
However, it lacks low-end impact, and its projection capabilities are limited, with height effects seeming confined to the top edge of the TV.
The AI Sound mode, unfortunately, introduces harshness that detracts from the overall listening experience – so much so, that What HiFi? Editor in Chief Alastair Stevenson has penned his thoughts on why the LG C5 is a great example of why he wants OLED TV makers to ditch built-in speakers altogether.
Both the LG C5 and Sony Bravia 8 are excellent OLED TV options, albeit ones with distinct strengths that will appeal to different users.
The LG C5 offers a more complete feature set, particularly for gamers, with its four HDMI 2.1 ports and 144Hz support. It's also available in more size options, including smaller 42 and 48-inch variants that might better suit certain spaces.
Picture-wise, it delivers slightly punchier highlights and excellent low-light colour volume, that makes it particularly well-suited to movie watching in darker rooms.
The Sony Bravia 8 counters with a more versatile stand design, superior audio performance, and picture quality that prioritises natural reproduction and exceptional motion handling.
Its Google TV platform is intuitive and well-stocked with apps, though it falls short of LG's offering in gaming support with just two HDMI 2.1 ports.
For most users, particularly gamers or those seeking a smaller OLED TV, the LG C5 represents the more versatile choice – assuming its pricing remains competitive with the outgoing C4 model.
However, viewers who prioritize motion handling, prefer a more natural image, or appreciate superior built-in audio might find the Sony Bravia 8 better suits their needs.
Once we have a final price from LG for its C5 range, we'll be updating our thoughts with more accurate value in mind, so stay tuned.
MORE:
Read our full Sony Bravia 8 review
Our rundown of the best LG TVs you can buy
Our full LG C5 review
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Satellites keep breaking up in space. Insurance won't cover them.
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Airplane passengers crossing the Indian Ocean who peered out their windows on Oct. 19, 2024, might have seen what looked like a fast-moving star suddenly flash and fade. Above their heads, a $500 million satellite was exploding. Operators confirmed the destruction of the Intelsat-33e satellite two days later. There was a bright flash as the satellite's fuel ignited, followed by the flickering of the debris cloud as it fragmented into at least 20 pieces. Those satellite parts are now zooming around Earth, along with around 14,000 tonnes of space debris. The satellite wasn't insured. As space junk increases, more operators are choosing to launch without any insurance at all. To compensate, companies are cutting back on the cost of satellites and launching more of them at faster rates, thus creating a feedback loop as the cheaper satellites break up more easily and add to the problem. "I don't think it's sustainable," said Massimiliano Vasile, an aerospace engineer and professor at the University of Strathclyde Glasgow. Behind the predicament are two vectors moving in opposite directions: The cost of launching satellites is falling, while the cost of insuring them continues to soar. Even as record-low-cost launches are improving internet coverage and cell service, they're worsening the space junk problem. Low Earth orbit, where most communications satellites are circling, is becoming increasingly crowded. Satellite insurance, meanwhile, has never been more expensive. 2023 was likely the worst ever for the market, with reports suggesting satellite insurers faced loss claims of more than $500 million. 2024 may have been even worse, according to Insurance Insider. Satellite operators are responding predictably, by foregoing coverage. There are 12,787 satellites above the Earth as of the time of publication, according to the website Orbiting Now, which tracks active satellites, but only about 300 are actually insured for in-orbit accidents, David Wade, an underwriter at Atrium Space Insurance Consortium, told Data Center Dynamics. European and UK operators are legally required to insure their satellites, which puts them at a cost disadvantage compared with India, China, Russia and the U.S. American companies such as SpaceX have also been able to reduce launch costs because of reusable rocket parts. Europe's upcoming Ariane 6 rocket program, for example, is expected to cost between $80-120 million per launch, compared with SpaceX's Starship program which is anticipated to cost between $2-10 million per launch because of its reusable rockets. In the U.S., launchers are required by law to procure liability insurance for launch, but once the satellite is in orbit, insurance is no longer needed. SpaceX, for example, is self-insured, meaning it seeks third-party insurance for almost none of its Starlink satellites. "Typically, the launch cover is literally just for that [launch] stage, and once a satellite gets into orbit, you are off risk," said Steve Evans, owner of insurance data provider Artemis (which is unaffiliated with NASA's lunar program of the same name). The satellite "either makes it, or it doesn't," he told The space insurance market began in 1965, when Lloyds Bank insured Intelsat I, which broadcast the Apollo 11 moon landing. The first known satellite failures occurred in 1984, though some later recovered, including the $87 million Intelsat 5 ($2.82 billion in today's money). The industry has generally hovered around a 5% failure rate since 2000, with Data Center Dynamics reporting that there have been only 165 claims for more than $10 million across the history of the industry. The 2019 failure of a military observation satellite for the United Arab Emirates, called the Vega rocket, led to $411 million in claims — the largest such loss in history, Reuters reported. That year, total satellite insurance losses became greater than insurance premiums for the first time, according to Bloomberg. Insurers were hoping to claw that money back in following years, but Reuters reported in 2021 that Assure Space and AmTrust Financial were both stopping insurance due to collisions. Insurers were looking for a payout in 2023, but instead, that year saw close to $1 billion in claims and some $500 million in losses. For many long-standing insurers, it was the last straw; Brit, AGCS, AIG, Swiss Re, Allianz and Aspen Re all exited the space insurance market. Canopius, a specialist space insurance provider acquired by Lloyds in 2019, told via email that it was no longer underwriting space business. Of the satellites in Earth orbit, around 42% are inactive, according to Seradata. The number of active satellites increased by 68% from 2020 to 2021 and by more than 200% from 2016 to 2021. Much of space insurance is modeled off the aviation industry, but space premiums are 10 to 20 times aviation premiums, Reuters reported in 2021. A satellite in low Earth orbit typically needs $500,000 to $1 million of coverage, whereas a satellite in geostationary orbit requires $200 million to $300 million, according to the same report. Behind the rush to exit the satellite insurance industry is a fundamental problem with satellite insurance: There's usually no way to determine who was at fault. When a house burns down or a car crashes, insurers often send investigators to verify a claim before approving a payout. But in the dark reaches of space, they can't operate that way. "In the event of a loss and a claim by the insured, it is almost impossible, if not entirely impossible, for insurers to investigate the cause of the loss, whether total or partial, and thus determine the amount to compensate the insured," José Luis Torres Chacón, a professor in the department of economic theory and history at the University of Málaga in Spain, told "I think this is where the root of the problem lies." Liability insurance is problematic for satellites, too, since it's extremely difficult to tell whether a satellite broke up because of an internal explosion or because of a collision with someone else's space junk. And if the latter, it's very hard to identify where the debris came from. "At the moment, it's not possible to say it was actually a fragment from that original explosion or collision that damaged the satellite," Vasile said. "So, in terms of insurance, it's a bit of a nightmare.' Vasile believes the market is moving toward legal liability for any operator responsible for creating space debris at all. "I think the government needs to set the rules, precisely as the government sets the rules for road traffic or shipping," he said. But a switch to stricter liability could create big problems for an increasing number of launch companies that are moving to cubesats — cheaper, short-duration satellites that are eventually abandoned by their operators as gravity slowly pulls them into Earth's atmosphere. Some climate satellites are in danger of colliding with space junk. Analysis of data from NASA's Land Data operation Products Evaluation, which tracks research satellite maneuvers, reveals at least seven occasions where NASA's Terra and Aqua climate satellites lost data while having to avoid space debris. Spacecraft in low-earth orbit are already under continuous threat. On Nov. 19, 2024, the International Space Station shifted its orbit to avoid another piece of space debris — this time, from a destroyed meteorological satellite. "Even a speck of paint is enough to destroy a satellite," Jakub Drmola, who studies the politics of satellite and missile defense systems at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic, told The worst-case scenario is Kessler syndrome, a chain reaction in which the breakup of a few satellites cascades into a wipeout of everything in orbit. Some researchers think Kessler syndrome is already happening, only very slowly, and that we've already reached the stage where the cost of cleaning up space far outstrips the benefits. "The world has now begun to depend on space in ways that we never thought were going to be possible," said Gen. C. Robert Kehler, former head of Air Force Strategic Command, speaking to reporters at the 2024 Outrider Nuclear Reporting Summit in Washington DC. He favors introducing a regulatory system similar to air traffic control. "We need rules of the road," he said. RELATED STORIES — Related: 3 big hunks of space junk crash to Earth every day — and it's only going to get worse — Space debris from a SpaceX Dragon capsule crashed in the North Carolina mountains. I had to go see it (video) —NASA satellite's 'shocking' space junk near-miss was even closer than thought The problem isn't staying above our heads. On March 8, 2024, a discarded piece of hardware from the International Space Station fell through the Florida home of Alejandro Otero, shaking the whole house. His 19-year-old son was inside. NASA had jettisoned the spare battery carrier, assuming it would either burn up or land in the Gulf of Mexico. But the agency's calculations were wrong. If the debris had landed just a few feet away, someone likely would have been seriously hurt or killed, according to Mica Nguyen Worthy, an attorney who is now litigating the first-ever case of property damage from space debris against NASA. Nguyen Worthy described space debris litigation as the 'next frontier' of outer space law. Without a clear set of rules, she said, future satellites launches and space travel itself could become impossible. 'I think it's important for the space community, and why they do take it so seriously, because they don't want there to be a situation where we have trapped ourselves on Earth, [and] we can't get out."
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
No, you're not dreaming: the Venus Optics Laowa 12mm f/2.8 FF II C&D Dreamer is coming next week
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Lens-maker Venus Optics has officially announced that it will be releasing a new 12mm f/2.8 full-frame autofocus lens on June 25, 2025. The Laowa 12mm f/2.8 FF II C&D Dreamer will be available in Sony E and Nikon Z mounts with full autofocus, and there will also be Canon RF and L-mount Alliance versions, although these will be manual-focus only. While Venus Optics has garnered a stellar reputation for producing innovative and often unusual manual focus lenses with remarkably low distortion, this new lens is only the second from the brand to have autofocus, joining the recently released Laowa 10mm f/2.8 FF II C&D Dreamer, which again offers autofocus in its Nikon and Sony versions, with other mounts only having manual focus. According to Venus Optics, the 'C&D Dreamer' designation in its Laowa lens range is broken down as follows. The 'C' signifies a compact build, the 'D' means minimum distortion, and the 'Dreamer' bit is reserved for lenses that exhibit soft, artistic image rendering. Indeed, it is compact and light, weighing around 377 grams, depending on the lens mount, and has a reasonably svelte 72mm filter thread. And Venus Optics claims that it produces images with a near-zero distortion. We'll see if our tests bear this out when we get our hands on a review sample. It's not the first 12mm f/2.8 Laowa lens – that honor goes to the Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D, which was released back in 2016. But while this 'Zero-D' model signifies a 'close-to-zero distortion' design, it is a significantly heftier lens, weighing in at around 609 grams, and is only available in manual focus, whatever the mount. While pricing details are expected to be officially released at the time of the announcement on June 25, I expect the lens will be competitively priced. As a rough guide, the autofocus versions of the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 lens cost £799 / £849 / AU$1,449.
Buzz Feed
10 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
28 Years Later Was Actually Filmed Using iPhones – Danny Boyle Explains Why
28 Years Later director Danny Boyle has opened up about his decision to shoot much of the film using an iPhone camera. The horror sequel was released last week, and has already proven to be a big success with both critics and cinemagoers. Danny previously helmed the original movie 28 Days Later, shot on hand-held cameras, giving the film the effect of looking like found footage, and his new offering used similarly lo-fi techniques. In a new interview with YouTuber Matti Haapoja's How They Filmed That series, Danny explained his motivations for using iPhone cameras (although it's worth pointing out he didn't just rifle in his pocket for his phone and start shooting, these were souped-up iPhones with impressive enhancements, with some shots requiring as many as 20 at a time to film) to record 28 Years Later. '[Using iPhones] allowed us to be very light, in our footprint, in areas of the country that we wanted to suggest hadn't been touched for 28 years,' Danny said. 'Now, a crew coming in with the normal equipment level, it's going to make a big footprint. 'We used drones a lot, as well, so we could film sequences that cameras couldn't possibly [achieve] without terribly disrupting the landscape, and making it look like a herd of elephants had gone through.' Danny added that the use of multiple iPhones and drones in 'arrays' allowed 'certain visceral moments of the film' to be even more impactful, allowing viewers to 'push inside' the two-dimensional shot in front of them before being 'thrown back out again'. Similarly, he told Wired: 'Filming with iPhones allowed us to move without huge amounts of equipment. 'A lot of Northumbria [where 28 Years Later was shot] looks like it would have looked 1,000 years ago. So we were able to move quickly and lightly to areas of the countryside that we wanted to retain their lack of human imprint.' During a separate interview with IGN, he also conceded that the iPhone-quality filming felt like something of a callback to 28 Days Later's shooting techniques. 'We decided to carry it as an influence,' he explained. Sony It's not just the use of iPhones as filming equipment that has generated conversation around 28 Years Later, though. The movie's dramatic climax has also raised plenty of eyebrows – with Danny having recently explained the meaning behind those perplexing final scenes.
