I just clicked on the link you provided and looked around. That's not enough?
Pretty demanding aren't we?
Here's the problem. You think this is worthwhile use of my time. My point is, if it isn't clearly obvious, its not real. When the D800 came out, I spend lots of time comparing K-5 and D800 images. What I found was that I could find areas where the D800 was better, I could find areas where the K-5 was better. Which was better depended on what part of the image you selected to prove your point. So I am really reluctant to start downloading and comparing whole files. Experience has taught me, it doesn't mean much. Variances in focus points creating slightly different alignment of the Depth of Field can make huge differences to how different areas of the photograph appear, especially in 3D set ups.
You may think I'm dodging, but in fact, I'm going on past experience. To conclude there is a real difference the you have to know about factors you can't possibly know looking at the images.
It is a constant source of disappointment to me to see people promoting new tech that is pretty much irrelevant to IQ. Promoting 45 k over 36 K, when 36 K over 24 k gives you very little is irrelevant. It's al amateur of perspective.
The differences between a D850 and a K-1 aren't enough to be worth a straight up trade. If someone offered me one, I'd take it sell the D850 and buy 2 K-1s. Let's keep these differences in perspective, in terms of what they are actually worth.
SO, from all the files I've examined at any size I'm likely to be viewing them, I don't see a discernible difference. I'd pixel peep for you, but past experience has taught me, that's pretty much meaningless.
Quote: You confessed that you looked at JPEG only,
There is nothing but jpegs available on Imagine Resources. I'm waiting for them to post more detailed info with raw data and MTF numbers from their tests. Again past experience has taught me that usually differences in detail of less than 10% are not visible in the final output unless you are printing upwards of perhaps 50 inches wide.I assume you might see difference there if you looked close, but it would not affect the artistic value of the image. I suspect that might be true, but i can't prove it. I would expect the D850, to be slightly sharper, but I also expect it will be meaningless to final output.
I can do what you do and see what you see, but that doesn't mean we would agree on anything afterwards. Your pro D850 bias is really apparent.
But just to avoid argument, maybe I should concede that the D850 is best for viewing images at sizes they can't be comfortably viewed at, because you can't see the whole frame, and for creating detail too fine to be observed at normal viewing distances. It's odd. I've noted many times before, on my wife's 4k monitor we can't tell the difference between a K-1 image and aK-5 image, but you want me to buy into there would be a difference between a K-1 and D850. That is going to be one tough sell.
So in essence the D850 is best for viewing images for which composition plays no part in the effectiveness of the image.Of you are close enough to see pixel differences, you are too close to appreciate the composition.
IMHO, you seem to be concerned with largely invisible minute differences that make zero difference to the art being created in the environment it's likely to be viewed. But that's always the way it is between me and you.
To me, a camera being better than another would mean I would enjoy this image more if were take with D850 as opposed to a K-1. I don't think it would. I don't care at all about the pixel peeping.