First of all, I do not believe that Phil is showing any bias when reviewing camera models.
That's a stretch, at best. Any reviewer is going to have an opinion on what may be important to users looking at a given market niche.
If you don't agree with it, fine. But, please don't "cross the line" with unwarranted accusations.
Anyway, here's a reply that I made to a poster that asked me which camera I'd choose between the D40 and D40x, after I answered soime questions for them about things like Sync Speed and lowest ISO speed earlier (in another forum). To me, some things are more important than bracketing, and I mentioned a few of them in my reply to a "which one would you buy" type question.
"Asking me which one I'd choose may not result in the best camera for your needs. ;-)
I'm probably not the best person to ask about Nikon DSLR models, since I'm still angry that Nikon decided to encrypt metadata related to White Balance in raw files from newer models (starting with the D2x, then the D2Hs, D50, D200, etc.). It's a matter of principle with me, since I don't like a manufacturer trying to throw up roadblocks like encryption to stifle competition. Yes, there are some workarounds now if you want to use non-Nikon software and take advantage of the White Balance metadata in the .nef files. But, the data is still encrypted.
But, even without the encryption issue preventing me from wanting newer Nikon gear, I wouldn't buy either one of these cameras anyway, since I'd want to use brighter primes (and still have Autofocus), as well as take advantage of lenses from third party manufacturers like Tokina, Tamron and more.
If forced to use a newer Nikon DSLR, I'd be more inclined to find a D50 if I were on a tight budget, or move to a higher end Nikon if budget permitted and skip the models without AF Motors in the bodies.
Heck, two Tamron zooms I shoot with now on a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D would not Autofocus on these cameras if I bought the same lenses in Nikon mount, and I'd have no Nikon solutions available with Autofocus to replace my existing AF primes (for example, my Minolta 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8 ).
For that matter, I've still got a Sigma zoom in Nikon mount that wouldn't Autofocus on these models (even though it would AF on other Nikon DSLR bodies). I've sold the rest of my Nikon film gear (only one body and lens left now).
Nikon will probably introduce more lenses with AF-S in the future. I'd probably count on it. This is likely to be a temporary problem in the lens lineup.
Sigma also offers some EX series lenses with HSM. But, Sigma's lower cost lenses don't get that feature, and no lenses from Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar/Cosina/Phoenix will Autofocus on these cameras.
If you want Autofocus, these camera bodies lock you out of many lower cost lenses from a variety of manufacturers, including Nikon (especially if you want to take advantage of older model used lenses).
I shoot in low light relatively often, and I would not want to give up brighter primes with AF. For example, I took some snapshots of my 2 year old great niece Amara from a dance recital this month using my 100mm f/2, and I was still getting a touch of motion blur from hand and foot movement, even at ISO 1600. If I were shooting with a Nikon DSLR in those same conditions , I'd probably be using an 85mm f/1.8 (only it won't Autofocus on a D40 or D40x).
I took some snapshots of more kids at a basketball game not long ago using brighter primes shooting some at ISO 1600, and some at ISO 3200 at close to wide open apertures to keep motion blur at a minimum. I also use my primes for live music in clubs, church services and more. There is no way that I'd give up the ability to Autofocus with bright primes since there are other choices in cameras available.
Sure, photographers got by with no Autofocus for many years. But, now that you can get it, why live without it if you need lenses that won't Autofocus on these camera models? ;-)
In fairness, you could use Manual Focus if desired. But, for moving subjects, focus tracking features in newer AF cameras is a nice to have. That also brings up another point --- the D40 and D40x have less in the way of focus points compared to other Nikon DSLR bodies. Do you need them? Maybe not, but I use the outside focus points pretty darn often on my Maxxum 5D (it's got 9 to choose from versus the 3 you'd have with a D40 or D40x).
Do you need the types of lenses that won't Autofocus on a D40 or D40x? If so, do you mind using Manual Focus with them?
Each user will have different shooting requirements. Many users that these models are designed to target may be just fine with the lens solutions already available (and there are a number of lenses that have built in Focus Motors that would Autofocus). Removing the Focus motor in the body also helped Nikon to make these cameras smaller and lighter. The image processing used by these models is also very good (requiring less post processing for equivalent results compared to many other models).
There are pros and cons to any camera. One of these models may be the perfect fit for what you shoot more often, and you may not want or need the same types of lenses that I tend to use more often. "
--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield 
