Either I have a really good 5Dc or a really bad 5D2 but I'm not seeing a full stop in ISO performance between the two. I think the 5D2 is a little better but not nearly a full stop, at least with the two I'm comparing.
Hmmm. Link here
for scientific charting that agrees with that statement.
I'm just skeptical of having smaller individual pixels. If they figured out a new pixel-lens or some sort of predictive algorithm that sucks more light or at least sucks enough light to make a good call (for each pixel) then the advantages of bigger pixel count is warranted.
Nikon's gone the other route ... forfeit being first in the MP wars for better actual performance in getting it right in low light (see the charts on Nikon comparisons ... they actually do have a full stop advantage).
My fear is mainly that I spend $1K to upgrade and wind up with marketing hype and possibly even a downgrade of IQ performance in difficult lighting. Ergo; this thread.

