I have just written up the article Perspective Distortion, Sensor Size And Portraiture for those who would like an introduction to these issues.

You misunderstood all my questions. You also misunderstood all my statements, though I cannot make them any clearer.

Diffraction is a law of physics and reduces the quality of any image shot stopped down enough. Posting one image you think is "good enough" in no way disproves that. By the way, it is an OK image, I am sure suitable to the task, but far from the best lens shot I have ever seen.

Look at any MTF test on, say photozone.de. Read any document on diffraction. We are not just making this stuff up!

Not too many folks realise that the FA77 is an update on the A*85 design, but is much smaller and easier to use. FA*85 is too big to be practical for me. I'd feel like a Canon shooter.

As for the FA43, nothing renders like it that I have ever seen.

Of course the FA*85 is also nice, for studio work especially.

I have had a lot of luck with the DA16-45 for landscapes. Same or better IQ as the DA* but way lighter and cheaper. The FA31 would also be excellent for this application.

For portraits the FA43 and FA77 are not going to be beaten.

I believe that "all photos taken at f/22 lose sharpness through diffraction" as it is a law of physics. The effect is a lot more noticeable on APS-C than FF sensors, but it is always there.

I don't follow your reference to the photo of the Vivitar lens. How is this supposed to relate to photos taken with the lens?

You need bifocals, trifocals or even varifocals so that your prescription can be tuned to different distances.

Well I know it is true for me!

You weren't any better at it, but standards weren't as strict as they are now. If you look back even at classic gallery-worthy photos and practically all journalism shots... they were "out of focus!" as far as anyone today would say.

Yes, despite what I said in my last post one can certainly have fun with a DSLR and video... indeed I hope to soon! But still it is useful to look at what the pros do and apply a little ingenuity to doing something similar yourself. (For example, cheap stabiliser versus gyro.)

The most important thing is to have reasonable expectations.

To do pro video the camera is the least of your worries and the least of your expenses. You need a body mount, stabiliser, boom, mic and digital audio recorder, external monitor, pull-focus rig, lights, reflectors, etc. etc. Ever see a film crew out on location? You will never get the same results without some consideration of how they work.