I think the hedgehog setting is the one in all the Custom Image menus that can give extra sharpness.

Philip

An example to warn of the spiritual trauma from the guilt and remorse induced when someone has exchanged his Pentax kit for some other brand.

Great photo, Smeggy. And whether it had been taken with K-5 I, II or IIs, it would still be crystal clear simply from his facial expression what the Predator thinks about the appearance of the Emperor in new clothes on this forum.

Happy New Year.
Philip

Cheers, Dave - it seems that you are going to have a really exciting New Year!

All the best.
Philip

The point is a simple one - the evidence shows that it is difficult to see any differences between images from the II and the IIs, even when viewed close up at high magnification, so they are unlikely to show in Dave's (the OP's) photos when viewed as would a normal person, and no-one has yet produced evidence to the contrary.

The following paragraph is an extract from DPREVIEW's detailed review of the original K-5, on a different but perhaps relevant point:
"The combination of a high pixel count and exceptionally low noise floor mean that the Pentax K-5 low sensitivity output does not only come out of the camera with plenty of detail, the shadow areas are also remarkably clean, and full of genuine detail. The only issue to be aware of as far as image quality is concerned, is the occasional appearance of jaggies in very fine diagonal lines, where they appear 'stepped'. This is almost certainly a consequence of the K-5's light AA filter. We saw this clearly in our studio test images but it should be stressed that in the hundreds of 'real world' pictures that we took with the K-5, we barely noticed it."
(The bold-underline is mine.)

Perhaps therein lies the answer - might the fact that the K-5 has a "light AA filter" explain why it is so difficult (for those with normal vision) to see the difference in images when it has been removed?

Dave, it would seem true that for you to upgrade from the K-7, any of the K-5 series would suit you so, if low light AF is critical to your work, then get the II - in the "real world" of your photography the IIs is unnecessary.

However, if you have the funds for a IIs, and noting your wish to turn professional, you might ponder an alternative - sell your K-7 and get two K-5 bodies. Working with two bodies improves your speed of work and security, and not having to remember the different features and characteristics of two different bodies improves your efficiency.

Of course, if money is no object get two K-5IIs bodies!

Cheers.
Philip

So you are answering as follows -

Q2: In the real world, wouldn't this size print (i.e. 4 feet wide) normally be viewed from about 6 feet away?
Answer: Maybe.

Q3: From this distance (i.e. 6 feet), would normal human vision be able to resolve the minute difference in crispness that you see from close up?
Answer: Maybe.

Cheers.
Philip

John, with answers like that, you must be (or have been) a politician.

Cheers anyway.
Philip

That's OK, John. Now, how about answers to my 2nd and 3rd questions?

Cheers.
Philip

The "thumbnails" are the 100% crops.

Cheers.
Philip

John, were you looking at the DPR 100% crop views? These are the equivalent of you viewing a 4-foot-wide whole print - in the real world, wouldn't this size print normally be viewed from about 6 feet away? From this distance, would normal human vision be able to resolve the minute difference in crispness that you see from close up? Even if aided by Pentax lenses in your spectacles? Your answers might help Dave decide II or IIs.

Cheers.
Philip