Large pixels generally have high read-noise which means they tend to have a tough time in such environments. Read the text. They claim to have developed technologies that counteract that affect (that read noise increases with pixel size).Hmm, ok. But in the general discussion, noise increases when pixels get smaller (at Hi-ISO).
Yeah, but that's a myth.
It is only a "myth" assuming images are always compared on a size-normal basis. That is certainly a valid way to compare, and the only normalized way to compare. However...assuming one buys a higher resolution camera for the purposes of using it for its native resolution, rather than downscaled to something smaller...the increased noise of a higher density sensor is no myth.
Smaller pixels have a lower cap on charge. Lower charge means higher gain. Higher gain means that for any given illumination level photon shot noise is exacerbated by amplification, which results in higher noise at native size.
Normalized is the way to compare that makes sense for... well... pretty much anyone. Saying that you should compare images at native resolution because one buys the camera to shoot at native resolution does not make much sense.
Sure, a shot from a hypothetical 40MP camera would produce a worse 36x24" print at higher ISOs (if you looked at it up close) than a 18x12" print from a 10MP camera with the same sensor tech. However, the 40MP print and the 10MP print would look almost indistinguishable if you printed them both at 18x12". However, and this is the big one, if you printed them both at 36x24", the 40MP print would look better at low ISOs (and basically no worse under other conditions).
(Sidenote: I was going to use 4x6" and 8x12" as example print sizes, but both sensors have plenty of resolution for that print size. 24x36 should be just about the smallest size where 10MP isn't quite enough)
You don't buy a camera just to shoot at native resolution (at least, I don't); you buy a camera to take pictures (or make prints). For example, I was doing relatively low light indoor sports shots last weekend with a 5d iii (typically f/2-2.8, iso 6.4-12.8k, 1/250-1/500). I had to downsize the images to about 3-5MP before I was happy with the quality (in other words, at higher resolutions I was either seeing noise or blur from noise reduction). So I could have gotten the same printable results with a 5MP camera in that particular case. However, the 20-whatever MP of the 5diii let me make that decision after I took the picture. And, if the light had been better, or if I cared enough to really buckle down with the post processing and noise reduction, the extra MP would have given me the ability to get higher resolution images.
Thats not to say that there aren't advantages to lower resolution cameras - a 5MP 5diii would not fill up the buffer nearly as fast, and previews would load faster in lightroom (the storage space isn't really an issue for me). A 10MP camera makes decent enough prints at 24x36 (certainly to the point where my skill, rather than the equipment, is the biggest limiting factor). And I am sure you could design a different sensor for every resolution and get slightly better print quality under those conditions. But, for me, and given the present state of DSLRs, the flexibility of more pixels is worth the small tradeoffs involved.
Well, for certain kinds of photography, everything you've said is probably true. I gather you do sports, which has some detail...with the finest being the players hair...which is not the primary thing viewers of your photography will be looking at. You can get away with a lot less resolution than many other forms of photography. Landscapes, for one, can not only use as much resolution as you throw at it, but near-infinite amounts of DR as well.
However, if you pick up bird photography, you'll quickly learn that no amount of sensor resolution is EVER enough, even though it means having to deal with more noise (and trust me, noise from smaller pixels is no myth, I deal with it every day). It is not as much a matter of how large you intend to blow something up as it is about whether you can adequately capture the extremely fine detail that exists in the scene. It's all about resolving power with bird photography, not whether you can eek out a 30x40 off 10mp. I really want to get my hands on a 5D III, a 600 II, and a 2x TC III, but even if/when I do, I'll still be getting a 7D II as well. There is just plain and simply no substitute for real-world native resolution, regardless of how large or small you indend to scale to in the end. Even with the best of the best gear, say a 5D III w/ 600 II & 2x TC III...you STILL fall short of the 7D w/ 600 II and 1.4x TC, both in terms of raw spatial resolution as well as reach (1200mm f/8 vs. 1344mm f/5.6). The problem is...despite the significantly greater detail the 7D right now *can* capture, ISO 3200 and 6400 are generally unusable. At native size, the smaller pixels just don't cut it in comparison to the 5D III, or even the 5D II for that matter....so I'm generally stuck at ISO 1600.
I don't even think that the 7D II, or any future 7D body, could ever actually quite perform as well as the 5D II or III. They pack in ~65,000 electrons at saturation with as little as 33% Q.E.. The current 7D tops out at just over 20,000 electrons and 41% Q.E. You would need a 120% Q.E. sensor (an impossibility, unless you aim instead for 80% Q.E. with color-splitting in place of a CFA) to achieve a 60k FWC on an 18mp APS-C and have the same native noise performance as a 5D III...and still be able to resolve enough detail for high-quality, professional bird photography (which these days, from the best of the best bird photographers, usually means a 1D X, a 600mm f/4 L II, 2x TC III, and a couple decades
of skill in getting extremely
close to your quarry.