so it seems the only option i have i the Canon 450D.... any thoughts on that... i can live with a 18-55mm or a 18-135mm lens...n later on can graduate to a 18-250mm one.... i would kindly like ur valuable opinion on this please.
Well, if this is the range of lenses your looking, the lack of an AF motor in the D40-60-40x is not really an issue. In reality, unless your going to be shooting with primes, Nikon has plenty of decently priced, solid performing lenses available. Vr is covered at a reasonable price by going with the 18-55Vr and 55-200Vr combo (optically and distortion wise as well as price wise the best choice), or the 18-200Vr (the most convenient one lens solution). The only limiting thing I find about these cameras is the Af system (only 3 points)....it's not great for sports or other action. IQ wise, these cameras are roughly the same, with the D40 maybe being a touch better at high ISO's. Don't get too hung up on Ken Rockwell's reviews. He's got some good info on his site, but he writes to stir things up. If you read through his site, he contradicts himself all the time (look at the current discussion of the D3 which he calls in his review as the best camera ever, vs the canon 5d which he is now claiming is better than the D3), and reviews equipment he hasn't used.
The truth is, none of the cameras you mention are a bad choice. Everything is a compromise, and how the camera feels is an important feature that often isn't considered.