This is just a really minor note. I was looking through some AngularJS code the other day and came across someone using a try-catch block that passed the error off to the $log.error() method. While this works - it logs the error to the console - it doesn't add as much value as the $exceptionHandler() service. There are times when logging to the console makes sense; but, as a general rule, I would try to favor the $exceptionHandler() service over the $log.error() method in the vast majority of cases.
Out of the box, the default implementation of the $exceptionHandler() service just turns around and calls the $log.error() method. So, you get console-logging for free. The real benefit of the $exceptionHandler() service, however, is two fold: For starters, the rest of the framework uses $exceptionHandler() to manage errors. So, by using the $exceptionHandler() service, you are keeping your code more consistent with the rest of the code (and consistency is always a win).
But, the real benefit of using $exceptionHandler() is that you are passing your error through to a service that has become the de-facto point of override for error logging in the AngularJS community. In my apps, I use the $exceptionHandler() service to gather stack-traces (using Stacktrace.js) and to pass those errors off to New Relic for more aggregated tracking. And, I'm not the only one - a similar approach is also outlined in John Papa's AngularJS Style Guide.
So, long-story-short, favor the $exceptionHandler() unless you truly want to log something without the potentiality of it being logged in a more meaningful way.