Have you noticed the undercurrent of comment about the questionable quality of photos and videos?
What brought this to mind was watching my old Phantom 3 pro and Mavic Pro on a 4K, 65 inch quality TV.
In the past, I was impressed with the sharpness and smooth videos on my 15 inch 4K plus laptop and thought that was as good as it gets.
Wrong!
By standing closer to the TV than the correct viewing distance does reveal detail you can miss on the small screen.

Most people have eye imperfections. Perhaps slight colour blindness, possibly some need glasses. We all believe what we see is the way everyone else sees it.
Wrong!
The picture you see on your screen, even if it is a high quality, calibrated monitor will be different to some degree with someone elses perception of it.

I have read posts on photography forums, particularly drone related ones where 1080P is better than 4K when viewed on a 1080P screen. Some screens are old computer monitors. This argument has merit, only because the down scaling process gives the perception of a sharper image and that the person isn't seeing 4K on it.
Have you seen comparisons of a 1080P video run simultaneously, side by side with a 4K video, on YouTube? Think about it, this is patently nonsense.
1/ Both videos end up at the same resolution and frame rate when played.
2/ Whatever resolution the video was recorded at, it will be compressed and processed again on YouTube.
3/ It will then be viewed on screens of the same or different resolution by different people with varying eye defects. and monitor quality and accuracy.

It also raises the question of how good the camera was.
This is also a nonsense question, once you start to consider matters beyond the obvious. The basics of sensor size, pixel density and lens quality. Yes, generally a larger sensor is a good thing. For a given sensor size, some will be worse than others and manufacturing tollerances and batches has a part to play as well.
More pixels are better, assuming you are using all of them. Wide screen or 3:4 proportions in the same camera will be the obvious way pixels become redundant. Then of course pixel size needs consideration. A small 20mp sensor will have smaller pixels than a full frame sensor of 20mp.
To make matters worse, there is the matter of sensor noise to account for. It is only a generality, not a hard fact that the bigger sensor will have less noise.
What noise are we considering? Is it electronic, heat generated, abscence of light?
A model of sensor has a characteristic performance curve. Some respond better to certain colours or have better heat disapation. A specific scene and lighting can produce a marked difference in the final image quality. Then we have the electronic post processing in camera to correct the image. Consider the RAW image and the same in JPG. They both started of the same in the sensor, but after that, who knows what took place.

The performance of a camera is challenged more in low light than in good light. We all know that. For the avaerage well lit landscape, displayed on the internet,  there will be little difference in result from a high end DSLR or cheap phone. The component that has the greatest effect is the lens.
All parts of the camera are made on a production line. There is a tollerance set by the manufacturer that all the components of the camera must meet. If all tollerances are towards the negative or even to the positive, rather than an average mix, then you will end up with a disapointing camera but nothing wrong with it.

Asking what drone, what tablet or phone to use with it, or what camera to attach is an embarrassingly stupid question. It all depends on what you want it for. Decide on that and the choice of equipment will become clear to you.
For example, you travel a lot, a bulky item like a Phantom or DSLR will be a right pain to carry if you only take scenery on sunny holidays. If you like the best kit, and nothing else will do, you still need to match the kit to you actual needs or you will never be satisfied with the results.

Seeing isn't often the same for everyone.

Very true,   some of the best images were made with inferrer equipment we have today,  you only have to look at some iconic images of the Vietnam war to see that.

DAFlys Posted at 4-1 00:02
Very true,   some of the best images were made with inferrer equipment we have today,  you only have to look at some iconic images of the Vietnam war to see that.

A very good example. Thank you for mentioning it.

AlansDronePics Posted at 4-1 03:32
A very good example. Thank you for mentioning it.

Its my pleasure.