For me, IQ ("Image Quality") relates to the technical quality of the photo, almost always resolution, DR, and/or noise, and does not include scene or composition. For example, I consider this photo, which I like a lot, to be "low IQ":
whereas this photo, which I also like a lot, to be "higher IQ":
(I tried to find two similar photos with different "IQ levels")
Clearly, it is easily possible to prefer a "low IQ" photo to a "high IQ" photo -- "high IQ" doesn't mean "better", at least to me it doesn't. That said, I don't think I've ever seen a photo "ruined" by "high IQ" whereas I've seen several photos "ruined" by "low IQ", in the way I think about IQ. However, I allow for the fact that if a boring "high IQ" photo had been taken (or, at least, processed) in a "low IQ" manner, I'd have liked it better. Indeed, I process many of my photos to have "lower IQ" because I like the "low IQ" look better for certain photos. I would go so far as to say that sometimes the "high IQ" photo is simply boring but the "low IQ" version of the same photo is far more interesting.
By taking the initial photo with as "high IQ" as you can and "lowering the IQ" in processing you typically have more artistic options, as it's difficult, and often impossible, to take a "low IQ" photo and make it "higher IQ". Thus, my desire for equipment that can deliver "higher IQ" -- you can even use settings on your "high IQ" equipment that result in "low IQ" photos, but the reverse is not true.
Lastly, for those who IQ in the way I use the term has no bearing, or, at least, any camera delivers IQ that is "high enough", why do you choose one camera over another rather than just the cheapest camera, or even just use a smartphone? Ergonomics rule over all else? Or are there certain operational differences that are "must haves", like animal tracking?
