This results in larger sensels (pixels) which are more sensitive to light giving the ability to capture an image in less light. There are large sensors with lots of pixels (as many as the small sensors), and they perform better at higher ISO's because the pixels are larger.
A fifty dollar bill is worth more than a five dollar bill, therefore the same sum of money converted to another currency as fifty dollar bills, is automatically worth more, than if it had been converted as five dollar bills - is that your logic? It's certainly true that ten fifties are worth more than ten fives - but that's a different matter. What one needs to compare, when working out the value of a bill, is how much do I get for one fifty dollar bill, as compared to how much do I get, for ten five dollar bills - IOW, keeping the notional total amount artificially the same for purposes of comparison.
In sensors, the "notional amount" is the effective area of the sensor. This varies for different cameras, just as real amounts of money vary. In some circumstances or respects a $50 bill is more desirable to the foreign money-changer than the $5 bill - or less - and so fetches a higher street price - or a lower one -
per dollar . So there are two things to consider: how many dollars face value, and made up of what cash bills.
The actuality, AFAICT, is that small sensored cameras typically use smaller pixels that are
more physically efficient (across a given area) than the larger pixels typically used in large sensored cameras are (across the same area).
But going back to the money analogy: say I am bidding for an item in some exotic marketplace, using my $5 bills (which I get a relatively good exchange rate for, per dollar). Some other person comes along with a big sheaf of $50 bills (which he gets a relatively poor exchange rate for, per dollar) - but the sheer quantity of dollars he has, will still outbid my slender wallet.
RP
