Some positive results. v2 is uniformly higher than v1, but at nearly 1.8, not 1.5. Some of this could be because of a different calibration curve (which is worth checking on; I'll do that later).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ab4c0/ab4c077acc8201ae46f71e31c56d92c9b10bf9d2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b9e47/b9e47636bc46e316e787e0b465d96d8fa30a5d28" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8ddbd/8ddbd2f8bc8cbbf368b47270d4b0cec0987edbfc" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d29c/1d29cbc3257b09fa645b58d87b27ad90b5b889d3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d0829/d0829e4caad5145e85ce4c31a9291f229f46b3fa" alt=""
While the pixel-to-pixel comparison yields values ~1.75, the aperture photometry is perhaps even more severe:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08ecf/08ecf00816fe6de9d0bd4a3ab8fa7ff00ae5a682" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d78b/1d78b36b149b5f8b3555428daa4402dd5a7049fa" alt=""
Those are a difference of a factor of 2.5, which is rather enormous.