Nikon's low-end too low

Before anyone has a cow and ships it to me with a case of stale buns....YES, I have handled the D40. It was at a trade show and I got to play with the camera for a bit. I even got to shoot a few shots and slap a better lens on it.
Now let's get right to it: I DON'T LIKE THIS CAMERA BUT It's still a good camera. So here's what's up:

Nikon, continuing to trail in the P&S market with mostly rotten entries continues to wow most of us with D80's, D200's and the still impressive D70. When it comes to great image quality combines with ergonomics, Nikon seems to hit notes that continue to elude Canon.

Handling and ergonomics:
The Nikon D40 is the smallest DSLR that I've used and it is, without any doubt, too small for my hands. This camera, quite a bit smaller than the D50, handles much like a Sony or Minolta prosumer unit. At this time there are no power-grip options to increase the size of the D40. My wife, who is average in size, also found the D40 too small.
In spite of this Nikon did very well with this design and controls do fall into place naturally. The rear LCD is a whopping 2.5 inches. Sadly, Nikon has omitted the top status display found on the other models, building it into the rear display. More advanced shooters will miss the top display.

Performance:
Like ANY of the Nikon DSLRs, the D40 turns on instantly and has no shutter lag. Shooting speed, listed at 2.5 FSP seemed identical to any of the Nikons from the D80 on down. Focusing was quick and responsive with no hunting. I did not see enough samples to make a detailed judgement, but there is every reason to expect the D40 to match the D50 in image quality and perhaps even do better in higher ISO shooting. If you now want to see how the D50 shoots, for a better idea of quality, please look at Pbase.com and search for D50 shots. Nothing I can write here will be of more help than that.

Built in Flash:
I've never ever seen a DSLR that could take a great photo with the built in flash. An external flash is an absolute MUST if you want to see what any DSLR can do. The D40 is no different and the unit I held in my hands was not using it's built in flash. Expect to buy a flash!

Through a lens Darkly:
Here's the bad news. Most DSLRs actually have a tiny powerful motor to handle focusing on many non AF-S lenses. AF-S lenses have their own motors and are the only lenses that will work with the D40. This LOCKS the user out of using many great lenses that lack focus motors. It's hard to define what a loss of options this is. Only 3 of my lenses are AF-S types, so the other 4 won't focus on the D40. That also means you'll find few primes to mount on this camera, though it's clear Nikon wasn't really expecting you to mount a 1900 dollar 28mm 1.4 on a D40. I felt that the viewfinder quality was on par with the D50.

Some more bad news:
I suppose if you want a low profile DSLR and are willing to buy and live with a 18-200VR, this might be appealing. Still, with most of the better AF-S lenses mounted the D40 is no longer "small" and you have to question buying such a limited camera which is at the same price point as the D50

Battery life
Expect it to be excellent. Getting 600 shots on a single charge will be the norm. I get even more than that with my D80.

Build quality:
The cheapest of the Nikon DSLRs still feels better in my hands than many more expensive Canons. I think this camera is a mistake, but Nikon still got the "feel" right.

Menus:
The large LCD makes reading menus easy, but more cumbersome than on a D80 which has two displays or a D200 which provides even more info in the finder.

Who's it for?:
I don't know. I can't imagine why anyone would buy ANY DSLR that couldn't use most of the lens lineup from a marque name like Nikon. There is also a great deal of 3rd party lens makers out there with some fantastic products that won't work on the D40. Most of us buy a DSLR to add flexibility. While a D40 IS more flexible than a P&S, it's still a very de-tuned product compared to a D50. To me this is like a collaboration between Nikon and Fisher Price, but even a 12 year old would quickly grasp the benefits of a D50.

So, this is not a "bad" camera and it doesn't really deserve it's one star rating. It's well made and does make great photos. But it's a mistake to buy one on virtually every level I can think of. Costing pretty much what a D50 does, the D40 remains a loser even when it finally drops down in price. I suppose if the D40 was REALLY tiny, you could make some kind of case for it, but it's really not THAT small. There are those who will defend the D40. They'll say: It's for folks who'll only use the kit lens and cheap glass. Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. For me the appeal of a DSLR is that you can have a ocean of optical options no matter which body you bought. The D40 ends that.
Do yourself a favor and buy a higher end model.

Capt RB