More important (to me)....

the larger sensor allows you to use longer lenses to photograph the same image.
That is; the "normal" lens on a 1/2" chip is somewhere around 16mm
the "normal" lens on a full sized sensor (Canon 5d) is around 50mm.

The resolution may be exactly the same.
The image size is exactly the same (like for instance a waist shot of a person).

But the depth of field is dramatically different.
This is one of the deciding factors that made "video" have that "video look" - that is, extreme depth of field at virtually ALL lens lengths.
(Please don't flame me here - of course you can shoot with your telephoto all racked out and get some shallowness - but NOTHING like what you'll get with a full sized sensor. That is one of the deciding factors in the "film look". 35mm film is simply a bigger image size than 1/2" video chips and that is the look that we have become accustomed to.

You will not be judged by the resolution in your camera (well not THAT much)... you will be judged by how your images look. Large sensors give you a much greater creative range.

But beware! You can NOT be sloppy with longer lenses. A little out of focus is a big deal.

v

v

Nail on the head Vic

Larger photosites means more photons collected by the photodetectors which in turn means a better signal to noise ratio. Like everything though there's other factors which produce a diminishing law of returns, that's why we don't see 65mm or 200mm sensors used much.
Something has to project an image onto the sensor and getting a larger and larger artifact free image becomes increasingly difficult. It seems to become even more problematic building optics with variable focal lengths. This is why on a very cheap palmcorder you get a 20x zoom for next to nothing. A 20x zoom on a 2/3" camera costs lots of dollars. Of course not much point in having great photon catchers if the lens isn't collecting as many of them as possible. This also creates problems as you try to use larger and larger sensors and even more so if you want to vary the focal length of the lens.
This is why the overall cost of a camera with a good lens goes up quite dramatically as you go from say 1/3" sensors to 2/3" sensors. Push that comparison from 1/3" to 35mm and the costs difference becomes several orders of magnitude if you keep everything equal,

Bob.

Because it's all scam.

These companies expect us to get excited about things we've already had way before HD popped its lame head.

Check it out:

http://xkcd.com/732/[/link

People have been defending the overprice video market for way too long. Maybe it will bust soon but i doubt it.

These cmos chips are cheaper than CCD to make. Even the Sony ex1r suffers with these lame chips. Same goes with the tape transport system not being used. Yet the prices remain the same or higher.

DSLR on the other hand have the pricing more fair but the file size limit is a pita couple that with flash banding and format wars...Its pure hell

All we want is 1080 60P as the STANDARD.

NOW!

ps. tell the texas babies at dvinfo they are so 2008

"All we want is 1080 60P as the STANDARD."

Who is this we?