I was out shooting yesterday with my K-3 and the day before with my K-1.
A few comparisons for you... one k-1 image, one k-3 image. The photographers advantage is not that one is better than the other. The photographers advantage is knowing which is better than the other in which situation, and using each appropriately. Both cameras can achieve excellent results.
You can make up all kinds of stuff about why the K-1 should be better, but from my perspective, you just shoot with the appropriate camera. IQ< refers to image quality. You cannot judge IQ from test charts, only from images. This whole test chart thing is a colossal waste of time an energy and analyzing DR and noise numbers. Get out and learn to use your gear. Find out by experience.
And honestly, 90% of the time, the camera I'll use will be the one that's in my hand. It's not like the differences matter, unless you walk into a situation where there's an image you can sell for big bucks. Then there are a few times where it might be worth your while to switch bodies.
I'll switch from a K-3 to a K-1 for sunsets or sunrises where the extra DR and better noise reduction might matter, and I'll switch to APS_c shooting birds at a distance, where more magnification and subject resolution using the same lens matters. Just taking snapshots of most day in day out kinds of shots, take the camera out of the bag you anticipate being the most appropriate, and use what's in your hand.
Shooting with the appropriate camera, you may get better IQ on some images, but even then, it's not a given. It's surprising how often little things, the low noise at 3200 on the K-1 or the wider DoF and subject magnification using APs-c jump up and bite you.