Originally posted by D1N0 Not a fair comparison. A collapsible lens was never made for FF. Doesn't mean it could not be.
I still have a K-5 so I would not loose any reach at the long end and gain a lot at the short end with my legacy glass. There are always trade-offs. It doesn't matter because aps-c is here to stay and FF has offered us a choice to stay with the brand.
I agree it doesn't matter. I don't want FF, I don't buy it and get APSC body, some want both, some will stick to FF. As long as both camera are available we are fine. That was my point for people saying that there was no more market for high end APSC anymore.
As for fair or not to have a collapsible lens, this is moot point. What count for such matter as how much weight you have in the bag, how large it is and how much your gear make everybody aware of your presence.
For short, I agree there a problem to get fast, sharp WA in APSC, but the best compromize here seems to be Fuji mirrorless and I'am happy with DA15. I'll love a DFA 24 ltd as long as it is small enough, I would consider it for APSC, but I'am pretty sure in practice, the DA15 will remain far smaller and cheaper.
m4/3 sell because the kit lenses + body are quite small and acceptable quality. Many of theses kit lenses are collapsible. This is how the market is.
Starting from 0, I would consider to go m4/3 or more likely Fuji APSC for the size/weight factor. I may still choose K mount APSC. The thing that would make me not take m4/3 is that it start to make a noticable difference in quality and I don't like their choice of lenses. But really APSC vs FF, I don't see the value to get more weight, bulkier, more expensive gear for that small difference in quality.
All in all sensor size is the biggest factor for image quality, gear size and price. So it logical different people will want different compromize. Not 1 size fit all. That's why we have smartphone with 1/2.3", premium compact camera with 1" and the top of digital with MF sensor, more than double the size of an FF...