And what good did it do for Sigma?
It's amazing how you can use such an insignificant player as an example. Oh, sure, there are people believing that a camera maker's only purpose is to remove prisms and mirrors from their products...
Pentax is one of the 3 DSLR makers on the market. They're nowhere near the first 2 players, but they're competing.
Sigma, as a camera maker, is completely insignificant.
What a rubbish. Sony, PhaseOne and Hasselblad also are makers of DSLR and "competing". If "competing" means "you first need a detective to find a photo dealer (with a real shop in a real street within a radius of maybe 50, better 100km around the place where you live), then you eventually can get a Pentax body in your hands, but if you want to buy a lens for it, the next probable answer will be I have to order it first". If that's competing, my definition of it is a bit different. Pentax has to rely entirely of the diminishing crowd of die-hard Pentaxians. New customers would get a silver medal at first.
And competing on DSLR is like dancing around dinosaurs.
Sony gave up on DSLRs a while ago; and I meant small format DSLRs - but Pentax is also the one of the 4 remaining medium format DSLR makers (including Leica here).
I have such a dealer within 6km of where I live, except it has on stock about half of the lens line. YMMV.
But - we were talking about Sigma cameras here. Are you saying it's stocked everywhere? That it has a larger user base than Pentax K? What exactly are you doing with this discussion, besides hating Pentax?
Except that by "single focus lens" they're referring to a "single focal length lens" i.e. a prime. But you probably knew that.