noone

I grabbed an A7 for 400€ used and it is a wonderful camera, esp. when you're coming from m4/3. It fits perfectly in the hand, is really small and is incredibly lightweight, which puts it in front of the A7ii, to my eyes. Image quality is competitive today, I would say, except in low light. AF capability is good enough, if you're not after shooting greyhounds at the races. It's the perfect camera to take into the streets and for travel + if it gets lost it's not the and of the world. Gives wonderful results with old minolta lenses, as well.
  

Good info.  Interesting to hear it's great for both stills and video.  Are you saying that it's better than the Phase One and Hassleblad MF cameras?  Or are they in a different category in your eyes?
The addition of Prores RAW certainly gives it a serious shot in the arm for video, although that puts it more in cine-camera territory in terms of form-factor, compared to cameras like the P6K or A7S3 that can record to ferocious bitrates internally or to nicely compact USB-C drives.  It also gives a camera a big price shift in the wrong direction. I'm also a bit surprised that with a 100MP sensor that it's only 4K30 12-bit.  A P6K can do 6K60 internally.  Considering that MF is all about huge resolution it's a bit odd...
I did appreciate the composition in the video at 1:44 though!
How often are you utilising the full resolving power of the sensor in your still images?  I stopped taking stills when I got into video but recall the old "no-one needs more than X megapixels because the larger the print the further you view it from" adage, and although I disagreed with people asserting that the magic number was 2MP, 3MP or 5MP, my gut suggests that it's probably less than 100MP unless you're the FBI picking out terrorists from a crowd or whatever.
It's interesting that these are so close to FF, it means you can use FF lenses but it also means that any "Tom the DP" size advantage that it gives you (or @TomTheDP ) would be relatively minimal.
It's interesting you mention that, because in one of the other Prores RAW videos I saw, I noticed a Canon TS lens pop in there..
Do they all cover larger sensors?

While I think some of the FD L lenses are at ridiculous prices (24 1.4 especially) I till think it I a lovely lens and I wish I had kept my 50 1.2 L and that my 85 1.2 L did not have the dissolving bearing issue.     The 85 L can be had for (sort of) reasonable prices (be careful about the bearing problem).
I think most older lenses now should be looked at individually because you do not know how hard their "lives" have been or if they were even good copies to begin with.
Shot from my FD 24 1.4 L at 1.4 on my old A7s.

I found this an interesting video:
There's a few things about this that struck me.  First, it looks like an ad, which is odd.  The other things are that they shot the whole thing on the camera hand-held, that the lenses seemed to cover the basics (but weren't especially fast) and that it didn't look fundamentally different to a well-shot video from <insert nice cine camera here>.
@elgabogomez I agree that you have to consider the whole package in terms of codecs, tech features, battery life, ergos, etc etc.  I also agree about the relative new-ness of the format with lenses and other supporting factors as @noone says, but think about where FF was 3 or 5-years ago, without the frame rates, stabilisation, etc that FF now offers and is even considered a requirement rather than notable feature.  Your Polaroid 600SE might appreciate in value proportionately to the newer MF systems and you might be able to swap the Polaroid for a complete MF setup at some point in the future as more players enter the MF space and lens systems are built out etc.
I think it will be a very very long time before video can do fake DOF like you're suggesting @Video Hummus - as you say the effect has to be consistent across many frames and so considering the push for higher and higher increases in resolution, the bar is continually being raised about what level of quality the fake effect has to create.  I suspect that if you programmed the latest iPhones to take 24 Portrait-mode photos per second and downscaled the result to 640x480 the effect would be perfect, maybe it would hold up at higher resolutions than that even, but 4K?  Not a hope in hell.  Sensor technology might have to have an oversampling factor too, like you might need an optical and depth camera pair that operate at 5x the resolution of the output image for the result to be video-perfect, but as sensor resolution increases so does the expectation about distribution resolutions, so it might be an equation that won't be answered for some time.

Heh - I shot 20-odd weddings on a pair of 10MP 40Ds with a 350D as backup. People were happy to pay £1500-£2000 (and we didn't even give them prints - that was extra!) in the early noughties. Happy days.

Indeed. 

But in 2021, apparently you can’t with the Sony A7SIII because people might want to put the pics on social media and is 12mp enough?
My smart phone has a 60”x30” triple retina 16k screen so I suspect maybe not?

It's kind of funny, isn't it??? I mean, if you were a Wedding shooter, the 12MP Nikon D700 was THE Wedding Photography camera for several years, and a D300 12MP aps-c crop sensor camera would be a back up cam. 
Personally 24MP is kind of the sweet spot since it allows me to crop in when I need to. Since I shoot 90% buildings, I can step back a bit to avoid keystoning and then zoom in post.

Thanks for the advice guys. I found a nice condition A7R2 with 4 batteries for a good price on eBay this afternoon so I've bought it. It will be nice to look through some lenses with the FOV they used to give back in the day! Apparently the S35 4K is pretty good, so my go-to EF-S 17-55 will possibly get some use if I ever use it for video not on a gimbal or a jib.

While I think some of the FD L lenses are at ridiculous prices (24 1.4 especially) I till think it I a lovely lens and I wish I had kept my 50 1.2 L and that my 85 1.2 L did not have the dissolving bearing issue.     The 85 L can be had for (sort of) reasonable prices (be careful about the bearing problem).
I think most older lenses now should be looked at individually because you do not know how hard their "lives" have been or if they were even good copies to begin with.
Shot from my FD 24 1.4 L at 1.4 on my old A7s.

While I think some of the FD L lenses are at ridiculous prices (24 1.4 especially) I till think it I a lovely lens and I wish I had kept my 50 1.2 L and that my 85 1.2 L did not have the dissolving bearing issue.     The 85 L can be had for (sort of) reasonable prices (be careful about the bearing problem).
I think most older lenses now should be looked at individually because you do not know how hard their "lives" have been or if they were even good copies to begin with.
Shot from my FD 24 1.4 L at 1.4 on my old A7s.

While I think some of the FD L lenses are at ridiculous prices (24 1.4 especially) I till think it I a lovely lens and I wish I had kept my 50 1.2 L and that my 85 1.2 L did not have the dissolving bearing issue.     The 85 L can be had for (sort of) reasonable prices (be careful about the bearing problem).
I think most older lenses now should be looked at individually because you do not know how hard their "lives" have been or if they were even good copies to begin with.
Shot from my FD 24 1.4 L at 1.4 on my old A7s.

Following on from the Shane Hurlbut lens comparison, I'm interested in hearing about which lenses have desirable rendering properties, like a 3D quality, or a more flattering rendering of faces, etc.
Some stills from the test I linked above:


It seems that somehow the older optical properties of the Cooke give more depth to the image.  I've also encountered this in my own tests with the Takumars, which seemed very flat in comparison to other equivalent lenses at identical apertures.
Another strange example is this comparison of two 35mm lenses at the same distance and aperture:

The K35 looks like it has more wide-angle distortion, almost like it is a wider lens that's closer to the subject, but that isn't the case.
Of the more affordable lenses around, what are the ones that stand out? and why?

Yeah, I just watched the second part (the two hour one) and Chris said that he's trying to work a couple of years ahead of what he's shooting, so doesn't want to talk about what he's looking into because as soon as he talks about a particular vintage lens then the prices go through the roof, so he doesn't want to disclose that until he's already bought the lenses he needs to build his own set.
I feel like some of these vintage lenses are already too expensive to own, and that time is running out for other series.

While watching the latest @Tito Ferradans anamorphic video, he references a great conversation about lenses and especially vintage vs modern glass.
The video is 1-hour and they present screen grabs from lens tests as well as talk about lots of interesting stuff, especially K35s.  @Andrew Reid - there was even some stuff mentioned in here about them that Media Division didn't include in their excellent video on the FD vs K35 lenses.
There's also a part 2 that is 2-hours that I am yet to watch:
In the first part above they make reference to a comparison that Shane Hurlbut made between the modern and optically excellent Leica Summilux-C and the vintage and less perfect Cooke S4, including some side-by-sides that really show a difference in how 3D the lenses are.  Spoiler, the Cooke is the more 3-dimensional of the two.
Going back to Jay Holben and Christopher Probst, apparently they're working on The Cine Lens Manual which is a book and has been in development for many years now and is up to 1000 pages.  Apparently it's taking so long because of the extensive testing of various lenses that they have done in researching the book, so it seems like it might be an encyclopaedia when it's finally done.  I'll be keeping and eye out for it, although with the work they've put in it'll probably cost more than what I'd be willing to invest!
The other thing that they mentioned in the test is the previous tests done by Sharegrid.
Their site is here: https://www.sharegrid.com/learn and it features a quad player feature where you can load up four lenses and play their studio test from the four of them simultaneously, which is fantastic for comparing lenses, or even the modern vs more vintage lenses.  It's just a pity there aren't more affordable lenses in there!

better conditions last night, two static images one from the p4k and the other the olympus e-m10 mark 2. The first should be from the p4k the second is the olympus. The olympus has a slight crop applied, oddly i would have thought the olypus with its 2x crop as opposed to the p4k 1.9 crop would have meant a slightly larger moon but that hasn't been the case for me. theres also a good chance that the issue could lie with me so i'll spend some more time on both. I have read that winter is a better time to photo the moon as the air is cooler and less turbulent, time will tell. Ideally i'm looking to get some footage of the moon with less apparent air disturbance, than the clip i posted earlier. 

Retail price would be a catch, haven't seen a Voigt 28mm in years... 
Also looking at the 11-20 that looks like its a nifty walk around lens for S35 although its a bit pricer than the 11-16. 
On a side note its great to see the lens topic getting some love!

Yeah, that those two APSC lenses exist says to me it SHOULD be possible since many APSC lenses do cover FF at least in part.     
The flip side would be that they ARE only equivalent to 24mm on FF and therefore not really ultra wide angle and i suspect it is making it from ultra wide to telephoto that might be the issue (ease to build for the price they would charge and the market need).   Maybe the different elements needed and the corrections required would just make it a headache and maybe not compatible?
Same thing with small sensor super zoom cameras, the lenses start at very small focal lengths but not really ultra wide (I think there were a couple of compact cameras that had zooms starting at around 19/20mm equivalent at most).

I have just sent the young model a PM and am really hopeful of shooting her with the Tokina 60-120 2.8 and my old 300 2.8 and Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 in one session.   MAYBE the old Canon FD 85 1.2 L but not sure since the focus throw is very loose and I am not sure what she charges yet (or if she will want to).
This old Tokina was made as a portrait lens which was probably a bit unusual for a zoom at the time all those years ago (adverts from then say portraits and also sports but it is a bit short for most sports). 
  I posted about it in the lens forum but have hardly used it since then due to lack of victims.

I love the old MF Tokina 60-120 2.8 I got last year for cheap on Ebay.
The only thing about is the minimum focus distance but that is solved with a helicoid adapter.
It looks and feels as if it was a day old (probably been sitting in its case for the last thirty years or so).   
Zoom function (push pull) is a little stiff to get moving but easy after that though since i pretty much use it at 120 nothing really.      I just need portrait victims to use it still as it is a bit slow for me to use and peoples attention span has greatly reduced over the years.
A lovely young model has just moved here so maybe i will see if I can hire her to use all my portrait type lenses in one sitting but this would be the first I use maybe.

Some of the cheap ones aren't great but the 20-35mm f2.8 was a premium lens in its day and according to this review it is smooth.
http://cschu.redirectme.net/mirrored/bythom/www.bythom.com/2035lens.htm
For the £40-50 I see them selling for they definitely are worth a go.
With it being push/pull, some examples of it can be a bit too loose so you have to be careful with them when trying to focus in the mid range that you don't alter the focal length.
I have a fondness for it because it was my first "long" Nikkor lens back in the mists of time when I was a kid and it was a brand new product !

Haha... 'lack of victims."
Have you hired a lot of models in the past? For my upcoming short films, mostly horror/thriller I was thinking about going the model route, instead of an actress, since some of the female roles don't have any lines of dialogue. 

I have just sent the young model a PM and am really hopeful of shooting her with the Tokina 60-120 2.8 and my old 300 2.8 and Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 in one session.   MAYBE the old Canon FD 85 1.2 L but not sure since the focus throw is very loose and I am not sure what she charges yet (or if she will want to).
This old Tokina was made as a portrait lens which was probably a bit unusual for a zoom at the time all those years ago (adverts from then say portraits and also sports but it is a bit short for most sports). 
  I posted about it in the lens forum but have hardly used it since then due to lack of victims.

I love Tokina lenses. I have the 24-40mm 2.8 that I've always loved. I should bring that out the next time.
I could really use a long zoom. @BTM_Pix has recommended the Nikon Series E 75-150mm that's intriguing.

This site has not been updated for years but it is still useful regards Nikon lenses. 
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

I love the old MF Tokina 60-120 2.8 I got last year for cheap on Ebay.
The only thing about is the minimum focus distance but that is solved with a helicoid adapter.
It looks and feels as if it was a day old (probably been sitting in its case for the last thirty years or so).   
Zoom function (push pull) is a little stiff to get moving but easy after that though since i pretty much use it at 120 nothing really.      I just need portrait victims to use it still as it is a bit slow for me to use and peoples attention span has greatly reduced over the years.
A lovely young model has just moved here so maybe i will see if I can hire her to use all my portrait type lenses in one sitting but this would be the first I use maybe.