I work for a $5bil conglomerate that buys bloated mismanaged companies, gets rid of 40% of the people and then produces better products at better margins. It may be that this is where Kodak gets lean and mean. With the good part being mean. I just got home from vacation: Yosemite, Redwood Forest, Cedar Breaks - etc. I guess half the cameras were digital. mostly shots of the significant other with a neat backdrop. They will be "good enough" and less money (?) to print on the PC than the 35mm group. I still think 35mm is more convenient - no time on the computer to see a 4x6. Most of the shots I take with 35mm end at 4x6. My shots with the 4x5 will take a lot of time and will be large and some will call it art. I don't feel threatened. How long have we had McDonalds? There will always be the market for "good enough" fast and cheap. Where Kodak needs to worry is that it is mostly a chemical company with a great deal of its margins coming from medical and technical imaging. Digital is software and electronics. IMHO they should buy some companies that have that competancy (if they are not already doing this) Consumers will be happy with the Kodak brand in digital although Kodak holds the "first in mind" title for film (not cameras) and not yet do they have the "first in mind" for digital (cameras, processing or supplies).