hi MarkS,
Over the years I came to realize that the perfect sampling is not the ultimate consideration when matching a telescope to a camera. The signal strength and the signal to noise ratio are the key elements, I would rather work with pixel of 9um than 6um (16200) or 5.4um (KAF8300) anytime, also to give an extreme example, have you ever seen a picture taken with an FSQ106 (530mm) and a 16803 that didn't look amazing even if it was highly undersampled ? Being undersampled is way more preferable than being oversampled wich can destroy your end result (very weak signal) , also when undersampled the Drizzle X 2 works like magic under Pixinsight. This is the main reason why I did not consider the 16200 for my upgrade from a KAF8300, might as well do it right and go all the way to the king of sensors , the 16803.
Now my only decision left, do I buy a 10N or 12N , many factors to consider here , portability, does anyone here find the 12N a bit big for field operations ? , cost in not a factor for me, the weight of the scope is not critical for the mount ( I have a Paramount MX+) only to carry the scope itself is, if I go with the 12N I will be tempted to say at the 2 available focal lengths, if I go with the 10N the temptation will be strong to also get a 14.5" Dall-Kirkham in the future ( and that is a good thing). At the end, it all come down to decisions, decisions...