Quote: In my opinion, the extra money isn't worth it.
$100 isn't worth a sharper image.
Quote: Does anyone really believe that you will be able to tell the difference between a K-5II vs a K-5IIs when the II has been sharpened in any PP program?
One of the problems is that the word sharp is being used to describe two different things. Sharp in terms of the K5 IIs means it's capturing more resolution and therefore more detail. YOu can alter an image with PP to make it look "sharp", but you can't add the lost detail. Once that has been filtered out it's gone. So will you be able to tell the difference? I'm going to say yes... you will, but you're then back to the price thing... is it worth it? I don't know.
Quote: Especially at the sizes at which you would normally print with a 16MP camera.
One of the issues that we never seem to get agreement on is what size you can print to with a 16 MP camera. It's pretty clear that as you print larger, the image has to be viewed from a greater distance. SO it's not at all clear that a 16 MP image becomes unacceptably sharp at any size. I've taken 10 mp prints to 20"x30" and they look fine. IN fact one of those is my biggest seller. This whole question of when you reach the point where 16 Mp becomes un-acceptable is clouded in mystery. I'm starting to be convinced that with modern printers, and expected viewing distances an 16 Mp file will look sharp at any size.
So while I'm sure you're going to see a difference, I'm also going to bet that unless you are into a certain style of photography, as in say a lot of glass or crystal or things with hard to control contrast, the extra sharpness is not going to make a difference to the overall impression the print makes. YOu could put two picture of the same thing side by side, one FF and one APS-c, one with a lot more detail, but I'm not sure that in many of my landscapes that would improve the print. As any artist can tell you, sometimes you want to create impressions, detail is just not that important.
I'm sure someone will correct me, but I've read a lot of discussions and everyone has an opinion... so I'll just say in advance here, I'd like to hear from someone who printed say a 60" wide (or any size ) print from a 16 MP file and found it to be unacceptable. For myself I've already gone way past what I was led to believe would be good from APS-c. Forgive me if I'm a little sceptical when people tell me I can't get it done with a 16 MP file. If I had listened to those folks, it would have cost me money. I just took the files I though would look good large and blew them up without regard to "what's possible." And some of those images sold. HIghest possible resolution and sharpness is only necessary for an artistic style I would call "super realism." Very few photographers (or artists) actually work in that style.