Both images are reasonably sharp.

It may be that your expectations about what you will see straight out of camera may be higher than the reality. Landscape images that have a lot of local contrast, which our brains tend to interpret as being "crisper" or "sharper", usually only show such contrast after significant post processing, especially by using processing actions that increase local contrast.

From an answer to this question: Are award winning landscape images edited?

Pretty much everything on 500px that are at the top of various popularity lists have the everlasting stink edited out of them. Every.Single.One.

Nothing comes out of any camera on the market looking like CGI for a multimillion dollar movie. That's all I see in the "top images" at 500px.

Most of the "Featured Photos & Videos" at Fstoppers also have a lot of editing done to them.

With Flickr, it depends on which communities you're looking at. But many of them there are also highly edited, though not to the point many images at 500px are, and there are also a lot more that are much closer to what one might get from the camera's own raw conversion engine and user selectable options that can be selected before the shot.

Here's an image I shot recently near Page, Arizona. It was taken with a Canon 5D Mark IV and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens (non-IS) handheld. The lens was zoomed to 43mm, ISO 100, f/8, 1/320.

Here's what it would have looked like with the in camera settings at the time it was shot. Auto White Balance. Standard Picture Style with in-camera adjustments to contrast (-1) and saturation (-1) [These don't affect the final image since I can set them to whatever value I want in raw conversion, but they do make the histogram, based on the JPEG preview attached to the raw file and used to display the image on the back of the camera, show a little more accurately what's in the raw file]. It's shot a bit dark because if I'd shot it any brighter, the brightest highlights would have been blown out.

Below it's been converted from raw using global adjustments. White Balance was set at 5800K and a 2.5 Mired shift towards green. It was brightened by almost a full stop in overall brightness (with the highlights then pulled back considerably to prevent them from clipping) and the shadows boosted another one-third stop or so. There were adjustments to contrast (-), highlights (-), shadows (+), and minor adjustments to color using an HSL tool. Lens correction included chromatic aberration, color blur, and distortion corrections.

Here's the same raw file with the exact same adjustments as above with additional tone mapping applied to increase local contrast. Various raw processing applications call this 'Clarity/Vibrance', 'Detail Enhancement', or even "Local Contrast'.

Also understand that, no matter how well it was shot and with what high end equipment it was shot with, nothing will look as good magnified to 100% on a large monitor as it will at a more normal display size. Pixel peeping has raised expectations to ridiculous levels! A 24MP image displayed on a 23" HD (1920x1080) monitor at 100% is the equivalent enlargement of a 60x40 inch print! Viewing a 50MP image at 100% on such a monitor would be like looking at a small section of a 120x80" print! How often do you critically examine a 120x80" print from a distance of only 18-24 inches (the distance between most people's eyes and their computer monitor)?

---

An interesting aside: All images in the above answer were uncropped and resized to 2160x1440 pixels when exported before uploading them. istatic has resized each one to be the same (decompressed on display) file size. As the contrast is increased in each image, the resolution goes down to maintain the same decompressed file size. From 2160x1440 in the "straight out of camera" photo, to 1868x1245 in the second photo after initial raw conversion settings, to 1736x1157 in the photo with the same initial raw conversion settings plus additional tone mapping to increase local contrast.