The way I understand goes something like this....
A telescope is a photon funnel. The bigger the aperture of the funnel, the more photons end up hitting the sensor.
Traditionally, large photon buckets (pixels) were necessary to achieve acceptable SNR from the stream of photons hitting the sensor, largely because of high read noise and significant dark noise.
The only problem with tradition is that over time it gets outgunned by the technological revolution.
CMOS sensors are now starting to get competitive with their forebears with a combination of high QE and low noise, resulting in (commonly) smaller pixels that are able to achieve similarly acceptable SNR from fewer photons. That doesn't mean that chasing the faintest of fuzzies doesn't take a long time, but what it does it mean is that it isn't impossible with more humble kit.
Nothing is ever going to beat aperture...but what's happening with the newer technology is that there are more ways to achieve acceptable SNR that don't require the outlay of a family car. It doesn't diminish the amazing work done by the dedicated few with deeper pockets, but greater accessibility in this hobby can only be a good thing.
Some day I might buy a similar imaging newt that the OP is considering, hence my interest
but in the meantime, I'm having as much fun as I can handle with a small scope.