But where are the lenses we[?] want?
Despite what Nikon has said about the D80 being an "addition" to the line, I think it's really a replacement for the D70s. What's interesting to me is that Nikon has drawn the Secure Digital - Compact Flash line above this replacement. But with the higher capacities for SD cards, I can't say it doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense to me is the 18-135. Even though it has real AF-S (where you can refocus manually without taking it off auto-focus), the lack of vibration reduction makes it incredibly redundant. As Thom Hogan and others say (see, e.g.,
www.bythom.com), Nikon would have been better off adding VR to the 18-70. How many of these zooms do we need, especially in light of the quality of the 18-200 VR? If you're going to make another wide-angle to telephoto zoom, at least start it at or below 16mm.
Many are waiting for DX wide-angles, especially with large maximum apertures. I still want a AF-S 70mm f/1.4 or so so I can have the 105 field of view and shallow depth of field that we had with the 105 f/1.8. Add VR and I'll spend up to $1,000. And where is the AF-S version of the 80-400 VR?
Descriptions like "pro-sumer" don't mean much (as noted above), but that is where I'd place the D80. Nikon now has a competitor to both the Sony Alpha 100 and the Canon 30D. Nikon certainly is getting back into the game with Canon; although there are still more white lenses at events. (Perhaps it's because Canon has put IS into all of its long lenses.)
Now, if I can find the time to use this stuff ...