bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Without downloading #2 has a slight edge over #3, IMHO.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Problem is, around here and other forums, folks are drivg themselves crazy as to IQ, Image quality. OF COURS< you want sharp realistic images. So, you, as you alluded to, you look at thousands of images. Is the quality always down to the equipment? Certainly, a larger format camera (full-frame or medium format digital) and mare acute and expensive lense are gonna produce sharper images, perhaps better contrast and colour saturation. You can say you "get what you pay for"? The caveat is, however, how are you viewing these thousands of images and how much of the perceived high-quality is down to the photographer savvy and technique? How were the images enhanced and processed or reproduced.

Weh you are viewing an image on a monitor, the quality and resolution of that monitor greatly influence the perceived quality. A print may yield a different impression, An image lithographically reproduced in a book or magazine al effect or affect the image.

Many of the specifications that are published in lens reviews are based on more clinical tests. IQ is measured by optical/electronic instrumentation- pictures are taken of test targets. Maotof us photograph people. places and things, not test targets.

If for some areas you are dissatisfied with your results, firstly, you need to pinpoint the symptoms and causes. Waht's wrong- sharpness, colour saturation, contrast, are the optical issues like various distortion or shortcomings caused by lens aberrations? The problems could very well be caused by a faulty lens or camera body or equipment that simply does not come up to your standards. Or, are you doing something wrong, such as faulty focusing technique, not using a lens shade and thereby introducing contrast robbing flare, shooting everything at f/32 for maximizing depth of field and thereby introducing diffraction?

Images that look "too sharp' and therefore artificial, can be the result of over-processing- over-sharpening. Perhaps there is nothing wrong- just a matter of conflicting tastes.

I know that there is a hackneyed old argument but you need to consider that CAMERAS AND LENSES don't take pictures, PHOTOGRAPHERS do that. Obviously, more sophisticated and higher-end cameras may yield a better IQ but a more savvy shooter with a lesser camera and lens might come up with superior results in any given situation.

I am beginning to dislike the term "Flagship" whatever. I see it used in photographic gear, audio equipment, computer stuff. Oftentimes it cenotes an over-engineered complex system with too many bells and whistles and more breakdown potential.

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

Ditto #3, although #2 is close. Either one definitely sharper than #1.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

A good photo must capture an emotion in order to be a great photo. Capturing "surreal life" is better than capturing "real life". The best photos have much more in them than just real life. Less than perfect gear can also capture surreal life.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Don’t see any difference

amersfoort

#2 is superior to #3 which in turn is superior to #1.

BebuLamar

What is the flagship camera? Is it the most expensive in a manufacturer line up? If so it's often not the one with the highest image quality under good condition (good lighting, tripod ).
For example the Canon EOS-1DX Mark III doesn't have better image quality than the EOS-5D Mark IV or the R5 nor the 5DS or 5DSR. The Nikon D6 doesn't have better image quality than the D850 or Z7 (Z7II). The Sony A9II doesn't have better quality than the A7RIV.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

Don't forget pixel size, I have found by having a lot of different cameras with different size sensors and pixels, that pixel size has a lot to do with picture quality.

Will

gwilliams6

As a professional photographer for over 44 years in the business as well as a University Professor teaching photography this is what you are seeing.

First, the camera's image sensor size and quality has a lot to do with it. With modern DSLRs and MILC (Mirrorless) the larger megapixel sensors will give you more image resolution and detail than smaller megapixel sensors. It is the physics of the pixel density of the sensor.

Secondly, the best of the modern camera sensors will be able to capture a wider dynamic range of your subject, some as high as 15+ stops of dynamic range. So jpegs and raw images from these sensors can have better shadow detail while still retaining the highlights.

Thirdly, most photographers that have spent for the better high-end cameras have likely also spent money on better quality lenses. All lenses are designed to be able to resolve to a certain resolution. Some lenses, no matter the price, can resolve higher end sensors (higher megapixel sensors). While other lesser lenses really can not resolve those higher megapixel sensors and the lens' deficiencies will be apparent in a higher megapixel camera's images.

Example: when I moved up from my 24 megapixel Sony A7III to my 61 megapixel Sony A7RIV there were some of my lenses that could not fully resolve that 61 mp sensors and I sold those lenses and replaced them with lenses that could resolve that 61mp sensor.

So bottom line, when you see images from camera/lens combinations that have both higher-resolution sensors and higher resolution lenses you will see better detail, better micro contrast, better dynamic range, better color rendition and bit depth, better sharpness overall. So you are not wrong in what you observe. Cheers .

Here an image from my 61mp Sony A7RIV with the excellent Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 lens. The Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco, California, USA. 17mm, f5.6, 1/60 sec. ISO 800, sunset/dusk ambient light. Even reduced here for UHH, you can still see the fine resolution, detail and wide dynamic range of my camera/lens combination.

https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography

(Download)

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

The Nikon D700 is said to have an image quality difference from any other cameras so is that just bull? Some of you have no idea what I said in my original post and that was expected. I don’t see any difference in the pictures someone posted. The pixel pitch seems to be making a lot of difference in image quality from my investigative interest. That and megapixel count of 20 or less.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes, and the three photos I posted are post processed from the camera raw files. I asked the OP if the difference he was suggesting was a difference visible in the camera JPEGs or in raw files as well and he confirmed it was there in raw files as well. Very obviously the camera JPEGs are processed by the camera manufacturer's software which is a product of the camera manufacturer's engineers. We can expect those will show the hand of those engineers. But for raw file processing would there be a difference that would still show through when all the raw files are processed by the same photographer? I think for the most part no unless there's a big resolution difference or noise difference -- something pretty basic.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

You beat me to it. If one tried the old "Pepsi Challenge" or a randomize double-blinded control study, I strongly suspect that few, if any, photographers could tell the difference between the various manufacturer's flagship cameras. The placebo effect is extremely strong on this forum.

MountainDave

I like #3 the best. The only item that looks significantly different is the green orb which has better clarity and contrast in #3. However, this may have been done in processing?

Zeke4351 Loc: Kentucky

My point is that If you took the same picture with same lens and used say a Nikon D5 or Cannon 1xd the castle would look just as real as the swans. The D5 or 1xd would make the entire picture look real.

aweisbach Loc: Omaha Nebraska

#2 looks sharper, but not by much.