Vizio, LG, Westinghouse and RCA all all about the same for price/features/quality. They also share the lowest contrast ratio of most in the market. The higher the contrast ratio, the more crisp the colors and blacks are displayed. I have a Samsung (current manufacture of most of the LCD panels in the world) that has a 60,000:1 contrast ratio. I have a friend that has a Vizio (much cheaper than my Samsung) that has a contrast ratio of 10,000:1. With the TV's side by side you can easily see the difference in the picture.
Just because a TV can support 1080p doesn't mean it can do it as well as a better TV. 1920x1080 is the physical limitation of the LCD panel for 42" or better if I remember correctly. The video decoder and processor is where the difference is really found. The cheaper TV has cheaper components, and a lower quality in the picture.
So far all of my friends and visitors are in awe of the picture quality I get on my LCD. Most of those have an LCD TV that is rated for 1080p. If the innards are all on par, why does the higher cost TV have a better quality picture. You're not just paying for the name in many cases.
If you like to play Blu-Ray or console games that run at 1080i or 1080p, you will see ghosting when things start moving around on the screen quickly. On the higher quality, and more expensive LCD's, the ghosting is much less noticeable. If this is the case I would suggest you look for an LCD that has at least a 40,000:1 contrast ration. The video processor in it will also be smoother than a 10,000:1 set.
I wouldn't bother buying a Sony, because Samsung even makes those LCD panels. I bought a Samsung because they produce the core, and use the best in their own TV's. Sony does have a better sound amp, but the video processor is right on par with Samsung. I also have a good surround sound system that the LCD plugs into.
