Sony has three different new FF prototypes in the works …

Still there is a marked, like $$$ highest end video cameras. Seen the prices for these?

This simply isn't true. What is wrong with the A99? Even the A77 is decent at high ISO, thiough not best in class. But if you compare large prints from other aps-c cameras, you would be suprised by the small differences! Real world is what matters!

Really? Examples? And Nikon is struggeling with color and nasty oil spots?

Did you know that some noise is needed to get smooth tonal and color transitions on monitors and also for prints?

You don't even specify how you are comparing!!! If you compare pixel by pixel you get one result. If you take the total sensor area in account you get a very different and much more meaningful result. Or you could compare in other ways.

Please don't show curves that you don't fully understand how to read or samples picked from different web sites to "prove" this! That would just be more confusing and simple to argument against.

But then you loose fine detail, at the cost of high ISO that almost nobody use for real life photography. Just test photographs showing cats, shelves and boxes ... I think the marked would be even smaller for such a camera than a high cost A1 with 36 a Mp sensor.

Also, for modern sensors pixel size hardly matters since the microlenses now are so efficient that very little light is lost! Also the quantum efficient is so good that variation in livht flux is more troublesome than sensor noise! What matters is the area of the sensor. You really have to read you up on this! Large vs small pixels was an issue years ago! But not so anymore.