[texandrews]

The comparisons so far are seemingly in favour of K-1 II even with the apparent lack of microcontrast detail, but perhaps those differences are a matter of taste.

That's what I'm seeing in terms of a tilt towards one or the other, but the taste thing is interesting. I saw all the posts with the I-R test pics, and everyone seemed to be looking at the same spot. So, I went and looked myself , and moved around a bit. Overall, my impression was that the K1II had the edge, although not in certain spots. As far as artifacts at the higher ISO's, I think the K1II definitely had the edge. But I also noticed subtle but real differences in focus----this was most apparent to me in the hanging threads skeins.

In any event, at base ISO or a stop or so above, we know that there's no difference in performance. So far, really this is all about high ISO performance, and now AF performance. Hard to say about color yet.

[Mikesul]

That's what I'm seeing in terms of a tilt towards one or the other, but the taste thing is interesting. I saw all the posts with the I-R test pics, and everyone seemed to be looking at the same spot. So, I went and looked myself , and moved around a bit. Overall, my impression was that the K1II had the edge, although not in certain spots. As far as artifacts at the higher ISO's, I think the K1II definitely had the edge. But I also noticed subtle but real differences in focus----this was most apparent to me in the hanging threads skeins.

In any event, at base ISO or a stop or so above, we know that there's no difference in performance. So far, really this is all about high ISO performance, and now AF performance. Hard to say about color yet.

You make an interesting and useful point about looking at different parts of the picture. That is important to do but it also makes comparisons very difficult.