Pot-rate? Potrate (Potassium Citrate) is prescribed to treat renal tubular acidosis, a kidney stone condition. In addition to this it has also been shown to successfully improve heart function, and so is also prescribed to patients needing to regulate their heart beat.
Under normal shooting situations, a great lens on any of your choices will have better image quality than a kit lens on any of your choices.
With the same lens, you will typically get the best image quality from a camera with the largest sensor with the largest pixel size with the most pixels. So the best would be one that has a large sensor with large pixels and a lot of them. This is why bridge cameras produce such horrible image quality - they have super small sensors with super small pixels and a lot of them.
The problem with your question is that you've got a mixture of mirrorless and DSLRs. Each of these types have the strengths and weaknesses. You can't, nor should you, pick a camera solely based on its "image quality." Let's say you go with a mirrorless. Take that mirrorless out to a football match and try to get the camera to track the movement of the players. Good luck because mirrorless cameras are horrible at tracking fast action. So what good does a large sensor with big pixels and a lot of them do for you in this scenario? Nothing!
How about when you're taking a landscape shot and you can't see the LCD screen because it's too bright outside. Mirrorless again will be a pain to use. For that I'd skip all of your options that don't have a EVF of OVF.
Removing the cameras that dont' have viewfinders, you're left with the A6000, A77 Mark II, and the A58.
Now you need to compare these and decide if you prefer to go with the smaller mirrorless A6000 which makes long hikes easy on the back. You have the option of adapting just about any lens from any brand onto the A6000, so you'll have a huge lens selection. The A77 and A58 are limited to just the Sony A mount lenses which are not all that great. Sure they have lenses with the Zeiss name on them, but when compared to Nikon, even Sony's Ziess 28-70 f/2.8 at $1,800 USD is about 30% less sharp than the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8.
Compare lens performance at photozone.de.
Remember, you're not just buying a camera body. You're buying into a system of lenses and accessories too. You need to take what Sony has before you buy otherwise, you could find that you should have gone with another brand. Also consider that when 3rd party lens makers like Tamron or Sigma make lenses, they rarely ever make them for the Sony mount because of Sony's small market share in DSLRs.