Preferring that we don't over-help each other, let me just toss out a couple of snippets from forums-chatter elsewhere (FM) related to this point, and suggest that there need to be pixels sufficient to present the image hoped to be cleaned of image-detractors such as noise.
In the case at hand, one can ask how Guy et al. have found such downsizing --if tried?-- to improve (print?) IQ, which improvement could be compared to the hoped-for ability of the A7s & D4s & DF.
At least it's nice to see the mpix lust now going in both directions --from the typical (recently alleged by Kirk Tuck no longer right (!)) "more = better", to now "fewer = really nice"!
.:. Anything but what we have, eh?
-drofnad