Links to original res versions of my previous photos:
I'm fully aware these are lame examples and these are obviously processed with added sharpness - still, the differences doesn't show in the smaller sizes.
I think I read in some other thread that Leica M9 does not have AA filter, so I looked for a RAW file and found this page:
LEICA M9 Sample Images and DNG files
Open it up in PS - duplicate the layer and apply Gaussion blur with a value of 2. You now have a copy of the photo that looks like it was taken using an utterly crap lens. Scale way down to something similar to the K-II samples shot and toggle top layer on off - how big a difference do you see? Would you notice whatever difference you see if you saw them side by side as clearly as on the K-II samples shots?
I noticed this NASA Curiosity pic on Facebook - caption mentioned the photo was taken without AA filter:
Catalog Page for PIA16134 I can no longer find that caption, but I'm 99,9% sure I read it correct. Does look sharper than M9 pics, though even though the tiff was likely created from highly compressed jpegs - anyhow, do the same thing with the scaling and blur. Even at a blur value at 1, it will be softer than the sharpness I can get from most of my lenses on my K-30 - and I don't have to pay attention to aperture size to get that sharpness. Increased (severe cases of) moire is what should really distinguish AA from non AA at smaller sizes.
In case anyone is in doubt - I'm not saying AA vs. No-AA filter is a load of crap. I'm saying the K-II samples posted by OP are doctored/fake.
Edit: who know, perhaps the camera used to take that K-II samples shot has greater sharpness towards the right - that's a possibility too. The one on left just looks too soft to be a AA thing.