Sorry, but as much as I would like the K-3 to swipe Nikon, we by now we should have learned to tell serious and unserious tests apart. As all too often, they are the other way round
This "test" is a joke. Just look closer, look at the images. The ISO 6400 samples clearly show the expected 1 stop difference, the K-3 shows more depth of field 'cause they dialed in the same F-stop, and the exposure preference of both cameras is a bit different (Pentax seems to like 1/6 less stop than Nikon which some prefer, some not). Resolution can't be told apart and shouldn't under such ideal conditions. If at all, K-3 should look a hair sharper because DoF and possible AA setting. But of course, they missed to assure equal focus, look at the fence image.
That's all ok, the K-3 does remarkably well. But IMHO the text is so foolish that the article is to be dismissed.
Points to observe for a serious comparison K-3 vs. D600 (and there are true experts out there now because it is just D7100 vs. D610 reiterated):
- Under ideal conditions (daylight, F/4-F/5.6, low iso), resolution is the same, except for effect of missing AA filter and defocus.
- 1 stop difference for noise and DR is inevitable for cameras with same sensor tech. Confirmed with D7100/D610. K-3 sensor is Sony and therefore, is same sensor tech too. Wait for DxO result.
- Under non ideal conditions, speed and accuracy of operation as well as availability of fast and sharp glass is key. None of which has been addressed in the "test".