I just bought my wife a D40 with the kit lens. I have a D100. I've tried the D40 with the kit lens, the Sigma 30mm and the Sigma 70-200mm (plus 1.4 tc), these being the only lenses I have that will autofocus on it. The photos look to be every bit as good as the D100, better in low light. The focussing seems about as fast. The viewfinder is better. The LCD is miles better. The shutter is much quieter and smoother and gives me the impression at least that I can handhold at lower shutter speeds. On top of that it's much smaller and lighter of course. Am used to the top LCD on the D100 but it's surprisingly easy to adjust to not having it, and using the back LCD instead. The auto ISO seems to bump up the ISO from base 200 more often than does my D200, though this an impression and not measured, but the picture quality even at iso 1600 is excellent, so it does not seem to matter at all. On top of all that I can get an RGB histogram. The kit lens is surprisingly good. The only (very minor) criticism I have is that it's easy to move the focus point from the centre to one of the sides inadvertently, by touching the circular pad and I can't find a way of locking this. If there is a way, please let me know. All in all seems to be a fantastic little camera and a real bargain at the moment in the UK. But my wife will never lug the 70-200 around and so I'll have to buy her a different telezoom later this year. 55-200vr, 70-300vr or Sigma 50-150??? The f/2.8 appeals to me, but the size of the 55-200 might appeal more to my wife. Any thoughts on this?