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

Besides waht others have pointed out as to the lack of EXIF data and the loss of IQ in transmission, there are the additional issues of subject matter, depth of field, aperture, and lightg for testing for resolution or sharpness.

Even if you do not have a proper resolution test target for photography, you could use a flat subject with detailed content, perhaps a printed page of a magazine with a line copy. Shoot parallel so shallow DOP is not misleading. Use flat even lightng with no reflections or glare.

This kind of testing will not yield actual resolution data but you will see if the images are sharp and acute enough and if there's any falloff of performance at the edges. Use a tripod. Focus carefully, shoot at each aperture setting, and see if you can detect which is the best-performing f/stop.

An authentic resolution test requires optical-bench testing and special instruments. This kind of test will just give you a general idea if you are achieving acceptable results and if these are properly aligned. If you suspect your eyesight is failing, see your optometrist. Somets upgraded eyeglasses or contact lens prescription works wonders for your photograhy!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Completely agree. You can download a free resolution target and print it on a photo printer, or as EL said, use the finest pitch flat print you can find. I have a target mounted on a plywood stand that I made and is at right angles to the base - makes for quick testing if you have doubts about your lenses performance. I shoot it from a tripod set at the same hight and use a remote shutter release.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Considering the subject, lighting, unknown capture criteria and post capture possible work there is nothing to confirm/support that the camera can, or can not, produce "acceptable" results. It also raises the question as to what 'you' consider as 'acceptable'.

Firstly, can I suggest that in the first instance you set yourself a defined 'measurement target'. By 'measurement target' I refer to an image pixel size (width x height) that when viewed on your monitor you base your decision as to whether the results are acceptable or not. For info, I use a 4k monitor and if a 3840 x XXXXpx image looks good w.r.t sharpness it's acceptable to me and means my gear and procedure were/are also acceptable.

Secondly, test subjects can be important but also raise questions. If we buy a test chart we generally have nothing to compare the results with, simply because we do not go around photographing test charts and do not have a visual recollection of what they 'should' look like. They can of course be more useful if you are making comparisons. To start with I would suggest using a dog/cat/doll/human face and focusing on an area that will show whiskers/eyebrows/hair using the best settings and procedure to achieve best results.

If you then look at these images at your 'measurement target' size you should be able to answer your own question. If you find the results unacceptable, that is the time to post them, originals with Exif, and ask others for advice.

P.S. My comments have been made after viewing your posted images.

photosfromtexas

Can’t tell. Too many variables are unknown. 1) was the painting on the ceramic sharp? The edges are often not sharp on such painted objects. 2) What was the DOF/ aperture? The cup is much sharper than the painted box and the I’d say that is only 1/2-2 cm further away. 3) and what pp ll about motion? Was it handheld? If on a tripod, was VR|IBIS turned off? I’ve found the leaving VR on cause unsharp images if shutter speed is longer than 1/3 second in some camera/ lens combinations and almost always longer than 1/10 of a second and even more at more than 1 second. And finally 4) what others have said: FB is not a true representation of what is on your camera’s sensor.

frangeo Loc: Texas

Hard to tell. The hot spot from the lighting kills the sharpness.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

And the OP has yet to post the original and EXIF info. Does he want an answer to his question?

kmielen Loc: Eastern NC

Yes, that seems to be his MO.
Last post generated 6 pages about Abes of Maine without any comment from him.
Plus, that Abes question could have been answered in real-time by using the Search feature.