Just out of curiosity, ... M43's 16 megapixel camera, sensor size 17.3mm x 13mm = 225 sq mm Total pixels per sq mm = 16,000,000 / 225 = 71,111 pixels per sq mm Size per pixel = 0.0000 14 sq mm Full Frame's 36 megapixel camera, sensor size 36mm x 24mm = 864 sq mm Total pixels per sq mm = 36,000,000 / 864 = 41,666 pixels per sq mm. Size per pixel = 0.0000 24 sq mm Though its not as straight forward as it seems, the general theoretical understanding is that the larger the pixel size, the better the dynamic range and high ISO performance in light gathering ability. So if we are to forego the advantage of higher megapixel count (eg. printing large), if we have a M43's latest sensor performance on 8MP, does that mean that it will perform better in high ISO and better dynamic range than Nikon D8000's 36 MP? Pixel size of 8 MP micro four third - M43's 10 megapixel camera, sensor size 17.3mm x 13mm = 225 sq mm Total pixels per sq mm = 8,000,000 / 225 = 35,555 pixels per sq mm Size per pixel = 0.0000 28 sq mm (vs. Nikon D800's 0.0000 24 sq mm per pixel). Not talking about the sensor design and technology, other than pixel size, what other physical factor affects the performance? Eg. will bigger full frame footprint and bigger lens means you get overall more light?