Well AVCHD at 16mbps is more efficient but the encoding suffers when motion is high, like on a busy reef scene or surface sea shots where even HDV breaks down.
This is a common complaint and may be a serious consideration. However, I've yet to see direct comparison footage of the same scene with both codecs. Do you know of any such sample footage? Have you observed the difference yourself? I wonder at what level of movement the artifacting begins to manifest itself compared to HDV. And what does it look like compared to HDV artifacting.
Unless the codec compresses each frame individually (like DV), this problem will always exist to some extent. Down with long-GOP compression!!
With AVCHD, there is still a need to convert to a 3rd codec to edit because of the MPEG4 compression. HDV needs to be done that way too for best results.
Hmm...It was my understanding that Vegas Pro 8.0 will edit AVCHD (and even output back to camera) natively. Could be wrong.
That said, like HDV there are good reasons you might still want to use an intermediate codec.
Further to hard disk crashes is backing up. Tape acts as a natural archive whereas AVCHD will always be dependent on drives. Something else to consider.
A hard disk crash is no different from a tape transport system malfunction/defect. Both leave the camera useless. Actually, one question I have for Sony is whether in the event of HD failure you can still record video to the flash card. If so, that's a huge benefit.
Backups are definitely a concern. I would have said it was a deal-breaker a year ago, but I just set up two 250GB 2.5" external drives for $110 each and always travel with my laptop, so backing up (redundantly, no less) is no longer such a problem. Come to think of it, having multiple copies of the footage across different bags would give me much more peace of mind than a precious box of original tapes. 
Certainly lots to consider...
Kris