do we have any comparisons on this site between photos

[bribrius]

from all the major brands and also the product line?

im seriously wondering how much of a difference there is between a four thousand dollar camera, a two thousand dollar camera, a eight hundred dollar camera and a one hundred dollar camera in the actual picture on say, the standard 8x10 or maybe up to 11x13.

I have this strange curiosity as well if there exists a eighty dollar camera somewhere that will provide the same image quality of two thousand dollar one too provided there is good light and it isn't in extreme condtions. I just keep seeing people taking some really excellent photos with really cheap cameras. Then look at some upper end camera photos and the difference isn't always so noticeable,
at the risk of insulting anyone im not intending too.

 

[astroNikon]

Your question is actually more than just the photo.

I think many will reply that if you use a 24mp Nikon d3x, a 24mp d610, 24mp d7100, 5300, 3300
that the photo quality will be really really great between them all

But a professional will want a battery life that lasts all day and night, and the 3300 will die long before the pro model.
If it rains a bit, a pro model offers weathersealing, better controls, and better overall features.

The overall features as you move up the line become quite relevant, IF you need them.

If you buy a 3300 and then want to get into off camera lighting you'll find the 7100 much more adept at it since it has a built in commander.

So there's much more to your question than just the picture quality in relation to the price.

Also, a camera is a tool. It totally depends upon the person using it.

 

[pgriz]

Under good lighting conditions and relatively static scenes, there isn't that much of a difference. Start changing the light to low, the action to fast, the distance to far, and the differences become more and more pronounced. But that's part of the issue - lots of really good photographic opportunities are at the edges of performance, and there the equipment contributes mightily (in the hands of a knowledgeable and skilled photographer).

 

[Derrel]

In good light and with easy subject matter, almost any modern d-slr camera will do a decent job, provided it has a decent lens on it. For "easy" situations, the camera's capabilities are not stressed very much. Static subjects for example, are easy enough to focus on in good light. As pgriz mentioned, once conditions start to become more-challenging, it is then that many times the "better gear" starts showing why it is...better gear.

For example, the typical 55-200mm f/4.5~5.6 kit zoom lens will not have the same capabilities as a 70-200 f/2.8 lens that costs $2,499 and is made with the state-of-the-art focusing motor and extra-low dispersion glass and advanced Nano-coating, allowing it to be shot toward the sun with little chance of flare.

 

[wyogirl]

The other thing to consider is you are talking about standard print sizes. Most comparisons that are listed online don't compare prints, they instead pixel peep. Zoom in to 100% or 200% etc to see the differences.

With prints as small as 8x10, its likely that you wont see any difference.

 

[runnah]

Don't know if this is what you are looking for.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

 

[The_Traveler]

I have this strange curiosity as well if there exists a eighty dollar camera somewhere that will provide the same image quality of two thousand dollar one too provided there is good light and it isn't in extreme conditions. I just keep seeing people taking some really excellent photos with really cheap cameras. Then look at some upper end camera photos and the difference isn't always so noticeable,
at the risk of insulting anyone im not intending too.

Sharpness and color rendition are not the only way to think of how 'good' cameras are.
I can take better pictures for a longer time with a tiny Olympus M5 and a Panasonic 35-100 2.8 than with D800 and a Nikon 70-200 because I want and value different things in the camera and the final image.