Isn't the retail price of the D40 supposed to be like $400-500 or something? I thought that making it even lower priced than the D50 was the point of the D40's existence. If they made a D60 at $650, I think that would fill the hole that having no D50 would create.
My main problem is with Nikon losing sales. As my company of choice, they're really going to lose out on some important sales (ie: people with a small budget who want a REAL DSLR). Once people buy a D50, they buy into the system, buy the lenses, and buy better cameras. It's R&D money for Nikon. Yes, the D40 will sell, but if I were on the market for a DSLR today and I didn't have Nikon gear, I wouldn't buy the D40, and I couldn't afford the D80.
As if this DX lens trend by Canon wasn't nerve-racking enough (I know I know, some think it's not a big deal to go with DX lenses, but I don't want to buy FF-incompatible lenses and will stick with this mindset for awhile until a new APS-C sensor that's capable of superb >16 MP performance is assured).
Is Nikon the next Apple?
There's a friggin hole in your friggin lineup!