This is getting too much for me.. Too much excitment..

The specs are looking very impressive, apart from the Lanc option as pointed out by Matt. This camera does seam to do everything I need. For the kind of work I do, I'll need to add a matt box, more battery power for 6 hours and still keep it portable. Looks a cracking camera.

I would like to see some footage from this camera? Does anyone know of any links?

I'm going to have a bit of fun and stick my head out and say £3,995+vat will be Creative Videos introduction offer for the UK. I think Sony will price it, so they can wipe panasonic HVX200 off the map.

No Lanc perhaps but there may be other new options.

As soon as the official Sony press release is online I will post a link to a review and some frame grabs.

If you read that in context it's three 1/2-inch type “Exmor” CMOS Sensors, with the word 'type' belonging to the word Exmor. At least that's the way I read it...

It's common to say "type" after the size designation in CCD/CMOS imaging sensors because the inch designation was originally based on the size of old vacuum tubes. Modern sensors are not literally 1/2" across, but they still use the inch format "type" designation. So no worries--the sensors really are 1/2" format.

Frankly I'm very pleased to see them actually say type.

Because 1/2" has never been 1/2" nor has any sensor size (be it 1/3, 1/4, 2/3, etc.) *ever* actually measured up to be what it says it is. Those designations are holdovers from the old tube days, before image sensors came into being. From my old but still relevant article at Canon Optura DV Camcorder Lineage, Pt. 1:

"The nomenclature used in video camcorders is outdated, archaic and inaccurate, but for some reason the industry insists on hanging onto them. Your DV camcorder is referred to as a one-third-inch camera and lens because that's the size of the CCD image sensors inside the camera head. Except it really isn't. They're actually a bit smaller than that. One-third inch, one-half inch, etc. are tube diameters back from the days before CCD technology when video cameras used orthicon, plumbicon and saticon tubes for creating images. To make an image plane the same size as those tubes used to make, the CCD needs to be only as big as a 4:3 rectangle that would fit inside the diameter of that tube. Therefore, a one-third-inch CCD is actually a bit smaller than one-third of an inch. Then there's also the appalling practice of expressing other CCD sizes as mixed fractions, such as 1/3.4 of an inch. If the industry would simply switch to an actual millimeter measurement of the CCD diagonal, we'd all be so much less confused."

As Chris mentions, the old measurement is archaic and more and more were seeing irrelevance (to a point) of size vs performance.

Considering the DSLR markets its sensors via mm ratios, I'm not surprised the Camcorder market hasn't.

Lets face it, on a marketing standpoint, people really don't want to read into the fact that their camcorder sensor is about 9mm in size (if that).

I can see their point in using these size ratios for comparison to the competitor or target market demographic, but in real world uses, despite the fact that it is archaic, it still works and will continue to work unless the manufacturers themselves take a gamble and offer actual CCD size to pixel ratios.

Pricing
 

There is a link which states the price: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6475992.html
"price of 6,500 euros ($8.875)"

Usually, everything european is higher priced than here in the US.

Different Level
 

While the 1/2in chips are nice, if the camera comes out in the US at that price, it will hardly be a Panasonic killer.

At NAB, Sony was saying the camera would be under $8,000. Of course, things do change.

I beg to differ... they're not trying to kill anyone. They're opening the doors for their existing DSR RNG users to consider HD options.

The XDCam units (using XDCam discs) are too high a price these days in regard to event videography (profit vs spend) and this camera in itself offers almost every feature the existing cams use and more.

For $8k US, it will be coming straight up against the XLH1 and JVC 250's in my opinion when considering price vs performance vs codec (which comes under performance) vs sensor, the market they are targeting is clear.

If the EX1 lives up to its specifications it should blow away the HVX200 in practical terms, especially if the memory cards are significantly cheaper. That said, I doubt current HVX200 users will suddenly find themselves questioning their cameras, and as always it's artistry which ultimately matters more than technology.

The HVX-200 is around $5,200 at B&H.

The features of the EX (lowlight and 1/2" chips) are worth a lot to me.

My guess is it will fall within reach of being a good value compared to the HVX-200.

But the HVX was a lot more than that at release. The prices you are seeing are the list prices so you can expect the on the shelf prices to be a little lower.

http://www.ingenioustv.com/xdcamex.asp

Kevin, sadly in the event world, and in this particular case, technology WILL play a major part in all this.

I agree that its not the tools but how you use them, however in this case, this particular tool not only allows for improved environmental control (ie low light performance as one example) but codec efficiency out in the field, price (one EX with two cards is pretty much the same price as one HVX with two cards... what would you go for if you were sitting on the fence?), ergonomic size vs clients perception of "size = quality" and above all else CCD DR and DoF management (comes with CCD size).

I'm all for Panasonic gear... hell, i still shoot weddings with my DVX100's but for me, after selling off two Z1's and waiting for the "camera for me" to come I think I may have found it with this.