24 Mpixel FF vs 16 Mpixels sans AA filter

I have been reading up on Nikon's latest FF the D600 and I find it very intriguing. A tad larger than the K-5, less robustly built but probably equal or better AF which has been a Nikon strong point. My love is travel and nature photography. I do more street photography as a norm. The K-5 has been great as a street cam but I have never been enamored with the resolution when it came to wide panoramas. My GH2 with the quite good Pany 7-14 out resolves the K-5 with DA 15 by quite a bit when set to the same equivalent apertures. This makes packing for trips out West a jumble of different bodies and lenses to maximize my near and far captures. Not really familiar with Nikons lens lineup but it seems to me that a nice wide normal zoom and 24 MPs FF would do me quite well for that area of my photography. I know we will have to wait to see what the K-5 IIs can do but could it really out do a FF sensor like in the D600. All the comparisons of the D800 and D800s were so unconvincing of the benefits of yanking the AA filter. I know the K-5 has a supposed denser AA filter than the D800 but could it really stack up against FF. Won't know for a while but this has made my next body decision much harder.

Lastly, Pentax took the K-5 out of production a while back and can only promise delivery by mid October of a barely modified body. Nikon has managed to start delivery of the D600 next week.
--
DaveJC