I "upgraded" from a K-5 to a K-70 for the greater resolution … in that respect it was a success, allowing me a greater crop factor for my wildlife photography, (no need to try to get as close and risk disturbing the subject).
The a/f "seemed" to be superior as well, but I never did any direct comparisons.
The low light sensitivity was a revelation
The fully articulated screen can be advantageous under certain (awkward) situations … low-level macro and high angle astro spring to mind.
For the quoted "family photos, landscapes and studio macros" I don't think you'll notice the difference, 'cept possibly as mentioned for the macro!
I missed the top LCD. I got used to checking in the viewfinder 'cos I found using the rear screen inconvenient.
Now my K-70 is "semi-retired", (good fortune has allowed me to further upgrade for my wildlife photography), I'll more often use my K-5 as a knock-about "general purpose snapper" simply because I find it easier to handle (better ergonomics).
The question that really needs to be asked :- "What aspect of your current camera are you dissatisfied with?"
I wanted more resolution and better a/f … my upgrade path gave me those features.
When I don't "need" the extra features my *
istDL2 can still deliver
For the OP's requirements I don't see any significant advantage.