Amit, thanks for the elaborate explanations, and I appreciate the time spent by you to explain the technological developments. So as explained by you, the better image quality if FF is due to:
1. Newer fabrication technology (32nm, 22nm)
2. Arrangement and packing of pixels on the sensor
3. Interpolation of physical pixels to get photographic pixel
4. Noise reduction algorithm
Unfortunately, it only explains the technological developments, and does not explain the following:
1. D700 and D300 were launched close to each other, so the sensor technology was at same level of sophistication. Still D700ís image quality is far superior to that of D300.
2. D7000 was launched 2 years after D700, with all the developments in the sensor technology. Still the D7000ís image can not match D700ís, or even old 5Dís quality, launched is 2005, with a gap of 5 years.
So size does matter
I do have issue when I observe the pixel level clarity of D800 as compared to 5DM3 or D4. As these are at same level of technological level, I conclude that individual pixel size does impact the image quality. I still doubt the quality enhancement of D800 over D700. Iíll wait for Anirban to confirm. DxO uses down-sampling, so does not give 'real' pixel level comparison.
Then I go back to my original issue. If the size does matter, why is the difference between D7000 and D800 quality, if the pixel size is same? The gap of one year has brought even better processes? Can the technology development in 3 years bring in such huge enhancement for D800 to exceed D700ís quality with 3 times the pixel density? Which is that specific technology (none of the above tech are good enough to justify this)?
I am sorry if I am not able to understand some basics you might be telling, but I am not convinced.