The Lackadaisical quality of the above photo (taken with an X1) is a good reflection of the lackadaisical quality of my testing.
This certainly wasn't meant for public consumption - it was to give me an idea of the actual IQ compromises entailed when using the K5 as opposed to the M9. It wasn't so that I could come to any selling decision, simply to get a handle on things.
To this end it seemed better to try and use perfect conditions - not high ISO or wide apertures or anything like that, I understand that pretty well.
So, I went out armed with the two cameras.
First of all a 24mm test - I used the DA 16-50 zoom for this, I'm certain it performs better than the 15 DA, and this copy seems to be a good one.
With the M9 I used the 24 summilux at f8.
Now the 50 mm test; here I used the Noctilux at f8, against the DA35 macro at f5.6 - a fairer test I feel. Anway, here are the results:
I've put the 4 RAW files concerned into my dropbox folder, so that you can go do some real pixel peeping if it turns you on!
Dropbox link to zip file
Worth mentioning that I did NOT use a tripod for these shots (I felt that the shutter speed made it unnecessary).
I also had IS turned OFF on the K5 - not to level the playing field, but I think that it has a detrimental effect on image quality when it isn't needed.
So, there are problems here:
1. no tripod
2. careless test conditions
3. matching apples and oranges
5. likely to start a fight!
Still, it gave me an answer that I can get to grips with, and it was a fun walk getting to the old barn (the dog got very bored when I was taking the pictures).