Odd comments. Very diplomatic
I think they're both very poor.
The ring light is the wrong thing for these lovely creatures. the reflection is distracting. It's all about the eyes and a large diffuser or sky is the only way to light them nicely.
The processing is all wrong. Notably burnt out highlights and drastic fall-off of tones to either white or black, with no mid tones.
B&W is not effective and the image is confusing, although it is a good, dramatic angle.
Sorry

Dolly and door knob, both have a nice large format look to them, but that may be just the closeness. I'm sure the K1 will excel with the LTDs and have a lovely look in the right hands.
I doubt whether it will be any better for birds etc tho? Although it should allow higher shutter speeds if that was a problem before?

Thanks guys

Thanks Rob

After lots of nagging, on Facebook etc. I finally got my arse in gear and organised a macro workshop in Devon
If anyone is interested in a trip to the South West, or you live near Plymouth and want to learn about a year's worth of guessing in one day. Give me a shout!
I've been using Photoshop since 1992 so I'm adding an option to stay on and learn some editing tricks & tips after the field trip (including Lightroom)
Other days to follow and more intensive, higher-level courses to follow.
Image stack (9 images).


24 image stack


Baby snail shot indoors with single flash

Exactly. They have the same pitch, so the display of the object will be the same. How it fills the frame will be different.
If you can fill the frame of a large sensor, then you are definitley onto a winner, with creamy tones and just pure scale!
But, the bottom line: I shoot small macro (5mm) on my K5, not the 645.

Ha ha. oh dear. I know what the OP was talking about, that's why I steered the convo back that way.
If you have more pixels you can print larger. That's the bottom line.
However, an ant on a 645 sensor will take up the same number of pixels as an ant on a k5 (coincidentally - same pixel pitch more or less), so it will look tiny on the 645 if you print the whole picture without cropping.
The ant itself will look larger on the K3 than on the K5, at 100%, but it wil take up the same space in the frame. So if you zoom out to 12% the two images will look the same.

Nothing wrong with pixel peeping if you are looking for quality. You can try and use it as a derogatory term with others Algi, but it won't wash with me.

Sharp??
Who said anything about sharp?
It's just maths; nothing to do with lenses. Why else would they keep increasing the pixel count on sensors?
But, as for sharpness, I found the K5iis sharper than the K3 even when interpolated up, and way better in the dark. So I sold the K3 and bought another K5.
Now.... back to the OP

Higher resolution is bigger.
900 dots will print 3 inches, 1200 dots will print 4 inches.
Same with displaying on screen.

That's nonsense for two reasons:
1- 25 ASA can be blown up bigger, precisely because of the finer grain.
2 - if you've got more pixels representing your 25mm, it will be bigger; this is simple maths.

And this is why my 645z can't produce a better picture of an ant than my K5