I think what Rashkae is saying is a general statement that's all. No need to dig out all those reviews la.
People who have been into digital photography knows that, in general, a smaller sensor will result in lesser capabilities in things like signal-to-noise ratios, image quality, or whatever.
The final image that comes out of it will also depends on the processor of the camera, all those noise reduction algorithm and blar blar blar.
So if one were to compare cameras, it is still better (IMHO) to look at them individually, as well as keeping in mind the pros and cons of each system (e.g. crop factors, sensor sizes, form factors, controls, lens selection range, etc).
cameras are not made of tofu
thats why it would have been better if that part was left out... because it doesnt really serve the original poster or other beginners, since its just one part of the equation. plus the inaccurate assertion in terms of market share? hmmm
What's going on inside your computer can have a profound effect on what's displayed on your monitor. If you hook up a 4- or 5-year-old PC to a top-of-the-line new monitor, there's a good chance your graphics card will need an upgrade to give you the best possible image quality. You'll need a card that supports your interface, be it DVI or HDMI, and it will need to support your monitor's resolution--this is especially important on 30-inch models with 2,560x1,600-pixel resolutions. Sometimes, improving your graphics card's performance can be as easy as installing a driver upgrade from the manufacturer's Web site."