jmajors: Apple's patent was to address the problem with thick protruding lens that you'd find on very thin phones or iTouch. When you have dual lens, you can reduce the size of lens thus reducing the thickness.
I don't think that you can patent a reason why you do something. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase.
RichRMA: Almost, but quite as ugly as the Nikon V1.
"Personally, I buy a camera because it takes good pictures, not because it looks good."
Personally, I buy a camera because it takes good pictures, and at the same time I very much appreciate if the camera looks good. Nothing in RichRMA's post implies that he thinks differently.
In my opinion too 7 and 7r are ugly (at least in pictures), but I'm considering buying either of them anyway – cursing the looks.
Jogger: "if the camera undergoes sudden motion while recording; motion generally inconsistent with smooth video recording"
most people dont want to beleive this and think that waving the camera around like a speed-addicted squirrel produces good video
"saving private ryan??? really? i was hoping someone would link a youtube video from a consumer grade camera where jerking the camera around significantly improves the video"
You were given a high class example, where significant "jerking" improves the video. If it's considered good enough for a large hollywood production, it's probably good enough for a home video.
Your original comment was "show me a video where sudden motion improves the video". You were of course trying to prove that one can't do anything cinematically meaningful with sudden camera motion (you are not a movie afficionado, are you?). Your attempt was naturally a failure (which any movie goer could have told you in advance).
SDF: Good job Sony for "man-up" and fix the problem.
"Actually there are numerous reports and complaints of a similar sound occurring when Canon (and some other) cameras are moved erratically while shooting video. "
Erratically? Like walking with the camera, or panning moderately?
novak977: For anyone with just a bit of elementary education in video recording there is no issue.This is not pixel peeping - this is way worse - in normal shooting situations, regular panning, and moving, there is no clicking.Only if you start shaking it - or moving it quite dast teh way you would normally do, you would here the sound.I have few hours already with it, and never heard a click/I will fix it, too, but mostly for the resale reasons. And I am sure it will be a proper fix as Sony doesn't need this kind of PR.
"It does require sudden movement."
Oh, because it does require suddent movement on your camera, it's the same with everybody elses? You seem to imply, that every product defect always manifests itself equally, and if one example of a product doesn't have the defect, none of them does.
"Also it is only noticable when ambient sound levels are very low."
So don't shoot those quiet moments? Sing while you shoot? Mix some rap, techo, rock etc. to your finished video?
RC: Seriously ? I just couldn't wait to put my hands on a 5N and now Sony wants me to send it back to them ? Are they kidding me ?Fortunately, I barely use the video function but on the other hand I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed with Sony. How could they miss the "clicking" ? This is not something which appears after a year or two or after extensive usage. It seems that almost every 5N has the same issue. How could they miss it ?!The only REAL solution would be to offer owners and exchange: Sony sends customers a new camera and they send the old one back within a certain time frame. Of course this won't happen, it would cost Sony a fortune but this would be the ONLY way how to handle this whole mess.
"Sound like your are a spoiled kid, this is an example of a perfect service."
Perfect service? They did just what they had to do to avoid more expensive and damaging consequencies, like law suits and more severe loss of reputation. Perfect service would be to first send the customer a replacement camera, and then take the malfunctioning one back. Customers have just purchased a new camera, and now they have to spend a minimum of one week (often probably two) without it, and send the camera back at their own cost.
pjsalty: What is the function of the projector? To project images onto a wall or screen?
Is anyone really going to blow a bunch of cash on accessories for a camera with a 1" sensor? I'll be very interested to hear what the iq is before I leave my m4/3 cameras.
I was expecting something that could compete with Sony NEX models on image quality, but now I can see that that's not going to happen. Now it's up to Canon to bring us something that can do that–together with advanced manual controls.
What a disapointment!
stephenmelvin: Yet another camera without a viewfinder. Useless.
None of those cameras have 20 million megapixels (or even close) either. Why does NX200...?
David Naylor: For those who still believe that you can have too many pixels: davidnaylor.org/blog/2010/04/the-myth-of-the-megapixel-myth/
The article David refers to isn't of very high quality in my opinion. The writer says confusingly on the other hand (briefly) that there are other factors involved in growing the pixel count than just the picture resolution, but on the other, the general tone of the article is strongly such that by proving (?) mathematically that there is more resolution in high pixelcount images, he has proven that high megapixel sensors provide better pictures overall. Contrary what the writer implies, opposition to the "megapixel myth" wasn't just about lacking sharpness in pictures produced by higher megapixel sensors, but picture quality in general not getting better or worsening when using them. It seems that writer adjusted the myth, so that he could write a sensational myth busting article. Well, he seems to have created a myth of the myth of the megapixel myth :-)