Whether a camera has 16bit or 24bit audio is not exactly my point, no. Maybe you're joking, I'm not sure. I think we're talking about different worlds of television and film production, which is totally fine :). The one I work in does not view half the project as a "luxury," "impractical" nor, as one person here calls the people responsible for half the whole project, "extra baggage." To get a perspective on that, imagine calling the camera operator a luxury or impractical and you'll get it. Again, it's okay. There are different worlds of film/tv production and I'm not familiar with all of them, just the ones where they need both halves of the project.



Quote Originally Posted by Stuart English View Post
Are you saying a lot of other cameras record at 24bit / 48KHz ? If so that's incorrect, go check out the specs for Sony F3 and Canon C300 for example ...

This is not an argument that using a directly attached mic is better than running a separate sound mixer, of course it isn't. But there are workflows where you don't have that luxury, or where the needs of post production mean you want the best possible sound quality directly on the camera - whether that's from a directly attached mic, wireless audio link, XLR analog line or AES/EBU digital input.