The problem I see a lot and I guess it affects other people is simply the quality of the atmosphere more commonly called seeing. We have been lured by small pixel sizes promising potential resolutions to the limits of our optics. Sadly, the reality, is somewhat different. I would be very lucky where I live to get under 0.7 arc secs per pixel and more realistic is just under 1 arc sec.
Using the C14 I'm going to be binning my Moravian G3 16200 to 2x2 and forgetting 1x1 until I can see a night of exceptional seeing. If my stars are hopping on the guider like a frog in a pond then I know this will be the right decision. Until I move my telescope to the moon 2x2 bin is about right on the C14 for my seeing conditions. That is the one important thing you need to determine for your camera and focal length balanced with the quality of your localities seeing conditions.
Your telescope focal length and seeing conditions will & should strongly influence your choice of camera!
You are using a very long focal length scope there with the C14. It's about image scale in the end. With 6 micron pixels at 3900mm, your image scale is about 0.32"/px, which is a very, very large scale (high magnification, low flux per pixel). IMO, based on my own experience and data I've worked from other people, the practical limit for most skies, even given very good seeing of say 1", is about 0.5"/px image scale. Beyond that, you don't really gain much, and you certainly lose something. Even at 0.5"/px, you may be losing too much, and the practical limit for less advanced imagers may be between 0.6-0.8"/px.
But, tiny pixels do offer something, and this is something I've benefitted from myself. With 4, 3, 2 micron pixels, you can achieve these large image scales more easily, with less expensive equipment. THAT is the lure. Now, it would be tough to beat a 14" SCT with 9-15 micron pixels...the big aperture trumps there, once you have sufficient image scale to make ideal use of it. However, the performance of say an 11" SCT with a KAF-16200, could be achieved with a 10" f/4 Newt and an IMX183. You would have roughly the same image scale, higher Q.E. and actually a slightly larger field of view. Roughly the same aperture, so you would be gathering about the same light (slight differences in CO, a little smaller with the newt, and the slight difference in aperture would be offset by the high Q.E. of the IMX183 sensor).
You can spend a lot less, and still be able to do high resolution imaging. It isn't just about the camera, either...a big camera and a big, heavy scope like that requires a more heavy duty mount, so the total cost difference is potentially in the tens of thousands of dollars range.
This only really matters if high resolution imaging matters to you. For wide field imaging, image scale is less important, and oversampling by a sufficient amount is not as important as getting the right size field. A smaller image scale/lower magnification of the object allows for higher performance imaging as well, and when scopes (apertures) get smaller, diffraction grows and can often become a larger blur term than seeing itself, and that limits how small of pixels you ultimately need to get good resolution.