hello,i am new here and just purchased a Nikon D40 after a lot of research. i have an older Nikon 4300 as well as a Canon SD800IS. i love photography and never had an SLR. i got the Canon pretty much as my "bar/restaurant camera" for when i want a nice camera that fits in my shirt pocket.i read the great review of the D40 on dpreview and it seems the D40 also shares pretty much everything with the higher end D80 except for the AF engine. oh, and the D80 beat out all the competition in the current issue of popular photography.so, logic tells me that with the D40, i am pretty much getting the D80 with the lack of 4 million MP and AF engine. i don't notice a single difference in overall image quality with the loss of 3 million+ MP when i compare the 4300 with the SD800IS. that, and the D40 accepts a ton of lenses...you just might need to focus manually.my main reason for going to an SLR is to shoot/focus manually. maybe take some night classes and take my hobby to the next level. the D40 seems like the perfect camera, no? i dunno, the experts tend to feel the D40 is great, but most people here (from what i have read) are calling the D40 a glorified P&S camera!!! that seems strange since its specs are almost identical to the D80. moreover, the experts are calling the D40 a step up from the D50, yet people here are saying the D50 is better.originally, i was gonna go with a used sony R1 for the zeiss lens, but i wanted a true SLR.oh, and i always thought the true experts/artists shot manually.thoughts?