My understanding of dynamic range is it's the relationship between the darkest and lightest part of the picture. So with 15 EV if you darkest part of the pictures was 5 lumens, the brightest part would be 5 to the 15th power lumens.
So unless I have this concept wrong it would be un affected by the size of the sensor. A two pixel sensor where one pixel was 5 lumens and the other 5 to the fifteenth power, would still have range of 15th EV would still have a DR 15 EV even though it was minuscule.
Same with ISO and colour depth. These are characteristics of the camera system that are not dependant on the size of sensor.
The only thing you can miss out on is some resolution. But when what you're talking about is a 2 times oversample compared to a 4 times oversample, even then the affects of more resolution are probably imperceptible. It has never been established exactly where it does become perceptible. A 20x30 inch print, 30x40 inch print? Most of us suspect that you took a K-5 image and printed it at 100 DPI, ( 60 inches y 40 inches) and a K-1 image and printed it at the same size, no one has actually demonstrated that the K-1 image would be preferable from more than a foot away.
Yesterday Tess and I ended up shooting pretty much exactly the same scene. Me with a K-1, her with a K-5. We used the same lens and field of view as well. DFA 28-105 her shooting at 37mm, me shooting at 58mm from within 20m of the same spot.
SO I'm going the other way. I consider it to be irresponsible to tell someone a K-1 images is the best image, until I see the parameters that verify that they have a clue what they are talking about and not just speculating. There is for sure a theoretical difference, but when does that difference become real world? I've never seen the question answered.
To me, all this stuff about FF being better is like discussing the size of bacteria and trying to extrapolate. If one bacteria is 10 times the size of another one, which one is more likely to cause a flat tire on your car if you run over them both? (OK that might be a bit extreme, but it's a demonstration of a principal.)
The two images.
There's been a lot of speculation that you gain something using the K-1 image. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, until I see a verifiable demonstration of that, I'm going to declare that the difference is meaningless.
On my 2700 by 1600 inche screen they look identical, on her 3800 by 2000 pixel screen they look identical. Where is this magic point at which the K-1 advantage is demonstrable? Until that has been established, people who say the K-1 is better are just speculating, and misleading folks. It isn't better on a 3800x200 screen. Where does the "betterness" start? It's an important question, because if in fact it never starts, you can't really say it's better can you?
But here is the killer, at least for me, both images look much better on my low res 103 dpi 27 inch screen, than they do on Tess' 3800 x 2000 221 dpi 21.5 inch screen. The viewing size has more effect on perceived quality than resolution. There are parameters here that have not been explored by the on-line geniuses.
This isn't rocket science. And owning a K-1 has really reinforced what a load of crock folks have been spouting about how marvellous the added resolution between a 36MP file and a 16 MP file is, all these years. For most of these folks, they know there's a difference but they haven't actually seen it. And you haven't seen files like this before, because "everyone needs more resolution" people can't produce an image that demonstrates their point, despite having years to do so.
99% of the people on this forum never produce an image that needs to be more than 12 MP (we have sold 12 MP files printed at 30x20 inches). But 99% of the FF proponents on the forum will try and convince you that they are part of the 1% who might (though it's never been established) need larger files. It gets old.
We sell our prints at 30x20 inches, and my wife sees no need to upgrade from her K-5. There are things I like about my K-1, but it's resolution is grossly under-utilized. I like the camera, that so far that is largely because of the one stop ISO advantage maintaining the same DoF. Not the resolution per se.
The biggest difference in my mind right now, between a K-5 and a K-1 is you have to buy much more expensive lenses on the K-1 to get functionally the same thing.