Urhg, I can't help myself.
Smeggy, You absolutely don't 'respect' other people's opinions and the comments back a page or two were just childish and bullying.
People are giving their honest (positive) observations and you are slamming them and being rude, based on a negative - a non-observation.
It's not possible to prove a negative, but your entire argument is based on this (and a massive defensive chip on your shoulder).
I can see a clear difference. One is clearly harsher than the other. I don't care which one's which in this instance; my own (positive) image comparisons and new workflo are reason enough to choose the 's'.

I said I would leave this thread, but I have a question
Everything you have said suggests you DO in fact need to do something, whether in camera or later to get the two outputs more or less the same.
So how does that make them equal?
Surely that proves that the filter-less system is inherently sharper?

I suggest that the amount of PP you describe above is far more than most people want to have to do to their images. If the critical part of the image is already sharp, there is no need for fancy masking to maintain a buttery bokeh or whatever, because simple output (device) sharpening is enough.

I have a spare up for sale.
pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/topic/k5-boxed-with-screen-protectors

It has definitely become silly.
My comment about grease on the lens was definitely silly (hands up, massive exaggeration obviously), I did also say I love both my K5 mark ones. But the iis is demonstrably sharper, which leaves me to concentrate on the rest.

Smeggypants, sharpness where the lens has focused is extremely desirable; it doesn't suddenly become sharp everywhere else; in fact the bokeh is better because it hasn't had the noise sharpened later (sometimes unavoidable around the edges).

Using 'pixel peepers' as a derogatory comment is silly and boring. Every single person on this site is concerned with quality, otherwise they would have a point and shoot. How far they go in search of that quality is entirely their affair.

Monitors are irrelevant; if you've been sharpening for that one output device then more fool you. It has no relevance to the camera.

I am bowing out now, because I don't want to get involved in this. My previous observations about my own kit have been misinterpreted and I'm fed up of explaining, when I'm just trying to help.

McGregNi, that long post was one big contradiction.
I'm saying you don't need to process the images as much which has numerous benefits, especially for people who don't want to fanny around with the images.
If the raw image from the sensor is sharp because it hasn't had a filter (of dubious worth for anti-aliasing anyway) then for 99 percent of the time you are better off. Whether it's a JPEG or RAW.

The less processing you do, the more you will benefit from the s

DanielH I think you have misunderstood my point.

It strikes me all this hi-brow talk, in excruciating detail about post processing techniques is lost on the vast majority (including the OP) who for the most part, just want a super image straight out of the camera.
I can take an image to the nth degree in any number of high-end apps, but if it comes out of the camera looking fab, I leave it well alone.
I love my K5(two of them) but the s is just better. IN THE REAL WORLD.

I did a test as soon as mine arrived and the difference in sharpness is amazing. Like the old K5 had grease on the lens.
There are some occasions when the IIs seemed too sharp and I suspect the filter would have helped - fine sea spray in my case, but on those rare occasions, you can always soften in post (I didn't bother).
I've said it twice on here and nobody has picked up on it, but the iis effectively reduces noise! because you don't have to sharpen as much, if at all in post, you are not emphasising noise.

Does Faststone actually work in Raw or just display the JPEG preview?