I shoot both the 170 and the EX1 on a regular basis. Two completely different animals. They look, function and work differently. If resolution is your number one priority, get the EX1. If "the look" is the priority (and you like the softer more filmic look of the 170) and or ergonomics (the EX1 has horrendously bad ergonomics in comparison to the 170) are important (do you shoot a lot of handheld?), get the 170.

This has been hashed out over and over and over here and elsewhere. Sony has a better lens, better LCD, much higher resolution, the Panasonic has the waveform/vectorscope, better ergonomics, 4:2:2 color space, lower cost.

I have shot green screen on both, it is a non-issue, they can both pull a perfect composite if you know what you are doing.

With the new E Series P2 cards, P2 storage is not a huge cost anymore. Yes, the Sony can shoot to SDHC cards with the hack but I personally would not stake my client relationships and reputation on a hack to save money. If I owned an EX1, I would use SxS cards. Also, I prefer the DVC Pro HD codec to the Sony format of the month long GOP codec but the Sony codec gets the job done for the most part. The IR contamination on the Sony can be a PITA, depending what you are shooting and how precise you or your clients are about color accuracy under certain circumstances. Same with the skewing/Jellovision. For sit down interviews and normal shooting, not usually a factor but for many situations, it can be a deal breaker.

I can only afford one camera and I own the 170 but a client of mine has two of the EX1s and I shoot with them a lot. They are both great tools, it just depends on what you are shooting and delivering to and what your priorities are. Frankly, if I had the money, I would own both, I shoot in situations where either are sometimes the perfect tool.

Yada, yada, yada. Either can be used to make great images, pick your poison.

Dan

Well said, Dan.

It still does come down to the operator and their ability.

Both tools can help you do your job. It's just picking the right tool.

But, back to the original question of 170 vs. 200a, I would go with the 170 anytime. (And I did.)

Daniel Weber

My previous camera was HVX202. I upgraded to HPX172. Immediately, I could see ONE big benefit - the focusing aid of the HPX172 is miles ahead of HVX202. 99% of my videos are in manual focus - and prior to HPX172 - I had bring an external LCD monitor to judge critical focus. Some places I work in simply don't have the luxury for me to bring an external monitor - and the HVX202 was very hard to work with. Now I am very happy.

ah ok. So you can get critical focus in the eye piece with the 170?

Oh, btw, does the 170 have the ability to flip the image in the LCD and viewfinder if you use a Letus or a Redrock adaptor for 35mm lens'?

Jon:

The LCD peaking feature on the 170 is superior to the 200. They upped the peaking so much that you can actually judge focus with the 170 screen pretty well, better than the VF in some cases IMHO.

The 170 can flip the image. It won't record it that way, of course. The HPX300 can flip the image AND record it that way, cool reason to spend the few thousand more for the 300 over the 170.

Dan