It's an interesting question. When you do a comparison you still know which camera created which image and it's always possible to be swayed by that knowledge. Here's some fun and everyone can play -- a truly blind test. I didn't move the tripod but the cameras all mounted a little higher or lower so there's minor variation. Should be close enough.

I don't want to give too much away but one of those cameras is a FF 20 megapixel camera similar to what you mention above. Maybe you can find what it is you're seeing in one of these photos and point it out to us. Or just sort the images to their price rank as in the cheaper cameras you mentioned. I won't say it's the FF 20 megapixel camera but one of those is a $6000.00 camera and the others not so much.

I'm curious if you see something that makes one of them stand out.

This might have been discussed somewhere before but I can’t find it. I spend a lot of time looking at pictures taken with various lenses and cameras. I use Nikon but look at pictures made with anything. I think most will agree that different lenses render pictures different and some produce a quality of color, contrast and depth very different than others. Now for my observation about flagship camera images. From what I see there is a special quality with pictures that come from both Cannon and Nikon flagship cameras that is not matched with the cheaper larger sensor cameras. The best way I describe what I see is that the entire picture from foreground to background looks more like real life no matter the depth of field. These cameras seem to produce a picture look of a different quality than any of the other cameras. I first thought I was crazy but after looking at thousands of pictures I am convinced they are producing a very different image. Is this something everybody else already knew and I just noticed? Other cameras take beautiful pictures but to me have more of an artificial look to them. I am guessing there is more to pixel pitch and megapixel count than ever gets discussed. The flagships specs were maxed out years ago for lots of reasons it seems to me. I can look on Flickr and other places and pick out pictures taken with a flagship camera. I own a D500 and a D850 and they take wonderful pictures but I think there is more to the ridiculous price of those flagship cameras than just being fast and tough. They have image quality that is closer to reality of the the scene or image with color and contrast that is unique compared to all other pictures. Have I lost my mind or am I on to something that is new to me and never discussed?

It's an interesting question. When you do a comparison you still know which camera created which image and it's always possible to be swayed by that knowledge. Here's some fun and everyone can play -- a truly blind test. I didn't move the tripod but the cameras all mounted a little higher or lower so there's minor variation. Should be close enough.

I don't want to give too much away but one of those cameras is a FF 20 megapixel camera similar to what you mention above. Maybe you can find what it is you're seeing in one of these photos and point it out to us. Or just sort the images to their price rank as in the cheaper cameras you mentioned. I won't say it's the FF 20 megapixel camera but one of those is a $6000.00 camera and the others not so much.

I'm curious if you see something that makes one of them stand out.

This might have been discussed somewhere before but I can’t find it. I spend a lot of time looking at pictures taken with various lenses and cameras. I use Nikon but look at pictures made with anything. I think most will agree that different lenses render pictures different and some produce a quality of color, contrast and depth very different than others. Now for my observation about flagship camera images. From what I see there is a special quality with pictures that come from both Cannon and Nikon flagship cameras that is not matched with the cheaper larger sensor cameras. The best way I describe what I see is that the entire picture from foreground to background looks more like real life no matter the depth of field. These cameras seem to produce a picture look of a different quality than any of the other cameras. I first thought I was crazy but after looking at thousands of pictures I am convinced they are producing a very different image. Is this something everybody else already knew and I just noticed? Other cameras take beautiful pictures but to me have more of an artificial look to them. I am guessing there is more to pixel pitch and megapixel count than ever gets discussed. The flagships specs were maxed out years ago for lots of reasons it seems to me. I can look on Flickr and other places and pick out pictures taken with a flagship camera. I own a D500 and a D850 and they take wonderful pictures but I think there is more to the ridiculous price of those flagship cameras than just being fast and tough. They have image quality that is closer to reality of the the scene or image with color and contrast that is unique compared to all other pictures. Have I lost my mind or am I on to something that is new to me and never discussed?

It's an interesting question. When you do a comparison you still know which camera created which image and it's always possible to be swayed by that knowledge. Here's some fun and everyone can play -- a truly blind test. I didn't move the tripod but the cameras all mounted a little higher or lower so there's minor variation. Should be close enough.

I don't want to give too much away but one of those cameras is a FF 20 megapixel camera similar to what you mention above. Maybe you can find what it is you're seeing in one of these photos and point it out to us. Or just sort the images to their price rank as in the cheaper cameras you mentioned. I won't say it's the FF 20 megapixel camera but one of those is a $6000.00 camera and the others not so much.

I'm curious if you see something that makes one of them stand out.