:::::Inserted links to main articles to prepare for shorting. "Bridging the gap in sensor sizes" is another candidate for shorting: "Once there was a "gap", and it was filled mainly with Nikon1 (2/3 sensors were often).  
 :::::@Bobn2: I just wanted to have any practical examples of sensors and expressed it vague, as theory is ok, but i never designed an image sensor. My few measurements have shown unexpected behavior especially in Detective quantum efficiency for a Nikon D300 and Kodak 14nx. If you have any figures, i will be glad to have this info. Thanks in advance. 
 :::::Your error is to confuse pixel-area, sensor area and a scaled image.  
 ===Facts=== 
 For a given uniform (lux) light source, a given lens aperture and a given exposure time,  
 ====Lumen and light energy is proportional to the pixel area and image sensor area==== 
 Exactly. Your text: "Lower pixel area gives less light (energy)added . Thats it." is simply wrong, 
 ====Pixels should be independent and unrelated in an image sensor (minimized crosstalk)==== 
 Crosstalk is seen as an error. The fact that pixels are ordered does not make them dependent. Just signals, every with the same potential SNR. 
 ====Scaling different image sensors to the same image size relates pixels due to interpolation/average==== 
 Thats what you written: In general a larger size sensor allows the capture of images (scaled to an specific image size or pixel count) THIS MAKES THE SENTENCE RIGHT! with greater signal to noise ratio and dynamic range than a smaller sensor.  

 But image noise is a different article!!!