Originally posted by VisualDarkness Well, that is a question of pixel density and not sensor size.
Ya, but practically, that's pretty much irrelevant, since K-3 pixel density is not available on an FF. The fact that an FF with the same pixel density would have the same reach, but more of it, will only become relevant when one becomes available. For right now, it's a theoretical concept with no practical application.
I could also say my wide angle needs are met by my Sigma 8-16 and DA 10-17, but I wouldn't want to muddy the waters with statements that would lead people to believe equivalence exists as more than an extremely imperfect guideline. I do find it annoying when people imply an FF can outperform an APS-c in the short end, but ignore the APS-c advantage in the long end. In real life, often when you get something, you lose something else something else.
Again, these are practical not theoretical limitations. You can discuss what's theoretically possible until you're blue in the face, and not learn single useful piece of information.