>> Thanks to everyone for pointing out my brief-lived typo. - Michael
Or as Emerson used to say: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Drew: I'm interested in your reasoning behind Nikon limiting access to pro bodies. I anticipated that after the Fuji S1 but I was wrong. Having multiple body manufacturers for their lens line is one of the few edges Nikon has over Canon, and I was beginning to believe they were actually smart enough to realize that...
Regarding the Kodak 14n, if their pro dSLR division survives, my guess is that they would have to start with a whole new sensor to solve the 14n's problems, and by the time you do that you pretty much have to re-engineer the rest of the camera as well.
I'm also curious as to what lens line a Fuji-Hasselblad 35mm dSLR would use. Both are superb lens crafters but I'm not aware of either having an existing 35mm lens line-up.
Back to Nikon, I see it as a corporation run my a very old-school senior management team. One that took a very personal pride in creating a product that was so well crafted that it took on the aura of perfection we associate with Rolls Royce autos, Swiss watches, and Leica rangefinders. I think they wanted to offer the same level of craftsmanship but at a price point that kept the common man in the equation. (What a coup the Nikon F and F2 must have been in a decade that associated the words made in Japan with trinkets!) But the rules of the game kept changing under their feet. The concept of a camera kept morphing from all-manual to all-computer then to digital output. Hard to see the aura of craftsmanship in a D1x. I don't get the feeling that the corporate heart of Nikon is in the game any longer.
Frankly, I wish they'd set up a new division to re-issue their classics, such as their rangefinder and the F2. I don't think they'd lose money in doing so, and I think it would help put the spirit back into a fine organization.