For Sony ff, it's hard not to suggest the A7iii or A7c and the Tamron 28-200. Theses are the current 24 mp bodies. The A7iii as noted, is due to be replaced but Sony sometimes is hard to predict as to what and when a "new" body will be or when it arrives. The A7c has the most recent focus system so is a little ahead of the A7iii in that way but is smaller and has some other "compromises" to be smaller.
The A7R series are higher resolution, pixel count, but unless making larger prints or serious landscaping, etc., you won't get the benefit of the large files, just use up file space, etc. The A7S series are aimed at low light and video. The A9s are speed demons for high rate action, nature, sports, etc.
It's typical of the forum that if one suggests they "want" ff, there will be those who argue strenuously for other sensor sizes. With at least some justification, as sensor sizes go up, so do sizes, weights and prices, generally speaking. OTOH, as sensor sizes go down, so does low light performance (and price to some extent, weight and bulk). OTOH, if ne suggests they want "aps--c" there will be strenuous arguments as to why ff is the only possible choice for a real photographer.
The same sort of discussion surrounds the Tamron 28-200. It is, indeed, a standout lens. There will be those who argue a 24-70/2.8 (and other lenses to supplement it) is the best/only choice. They'll work their way up to the ghastly expensive Sony GM, then the Sigma, at about half the price of the Sony (a tremendous buy!), then the Tamron 28-75/2.8, which is almost as good, perhaps as good optically, then side leaps to the Sony 24-105/4, then to the tremendous usability, focal length range, starts at f2.8, 28-200 which can replace, for many the f2.8 zooms or the 24-105/4. OK, so it's not going to replace the Sony GM lenses but short of having a really definitive need for one of the others, it's a tremendous ly flexible and very reasonably priced lens.
