Check this site out. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80.htm

I used the 18-135mm that comes with most kits and found it to be a pretty good starter lense. I have since bought a couple more lenses and so to will you as your experience with the camera gets better.

^ I dislike Ken Rockwell. Many of his writings/ramblings are gross oversimplifications and should be taken with a grain of salt. Tripods completely obsoleted because of Image Stabilization technologies? I don't think so.

The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is a good starter lens. For a little more cash you could instead get the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5, it'* got less range but superior image quality.

Buy from a reputable seller and ensure that you're getting all the accessories AND a warranty. D80 is a great camera, definitely hard to beat especially if you're considering it as your first DSLR. Myself I'm partial to Sony/Minolta (same **** now), but for the D80'* price point "Sonolta" doesn't have much to compete... yet.

Give the DSLR-A300 a look if you haven't bought a DSLR by the time it comes out. Sony manufactures the Nikon 10.2MP CCD sensors, and you'll find it in also present in the A300. A300 has live view.

Another camera you may want to watch out for is the Canon Digital Rebel XSi (450D); it'* also not out yet. I'm not a fan of the existing Rebel XTi and the older XT, but the XSi looks promising.

/\ wise beyond his years folks, this man knows his cameras/lenses

Yeah, I was hoping repin would reply. Seems very very very knowledgeable and unbiased. I admit I have done zero research on "Sonolta" so I need to address that. It seems that all I hear about is Nikon vs. Canon and it makes it hard to notice the others. This purchase is all about value for me. I don't have to have the best but I also don't want to waste money on a camera that is too basic. I don't want to be upgrading a year from now. I want a good solid body that is ready for any lens I throw at it.
EDIT: After a quick glance he A300 is interesting price wise. A little more than a D40 but a little less than a D80. How would you compare this to a D80? Pros, cons?

Feature set would be more closer to the D40x than the D80, but still has everything you could throw at it for years to come. The live view feature is also a bonus (think Point and Shoot LCD functionality without having to use the optical viewfinder), Sony'* implementation of it is pretty trick, the other competitors are a bit more slow and cumbersome... found a quick link here that explains it. Cons of the Sony... marginal high ISO performance (Nikon isn't much better if at all), potential slightly higher price because it'* a new model and the D80 is an outgoing model to be replaced any day now. Lens selection may not be as vast, but I've got all that I need and I think you'll be set for years to come.

Honestly, I could easily recommend both the D80 and the A200/300, get a chance to play with both and buy what you like. It may sound a little wishy-washy but if it boiled down to my personal choice, I'd have D80 over A200/A300, but definitely my A700 over the D80.

The Olympus DSLRs are decent offerings, especially if you'll mostly be shooting in broad daylight. Based on a few shortcomings for MYSELF on a personal level -- namely lousy high ISO noise performance and lens selection -- I have a harder time recommending it. But they are a good value since they're dirt cheap.

Another can't-go-wrong choice (albeit uncommon) would be Pentax; the model you'd be looking at would be the K200D. I'm not very well versed with them, however. I just know that they're another worthy contender.

I hope I haven't rambled excessively, I'm kind of tired

Personally i'd go with Canon or Nikon. However i'd also be "locking into" a brand as well, starting to build a Lens collection, and hopefully progress to a nicer body or two through the years as well.

Sony'* collaboration, while a great product on it'* own, can't compete with with the lens offerings of the big 2. I also question how long it'll be supported. A few of the middle tier camera producers have merged, split, or almost dissapeared from the market over the last 5-10 years with the digital rush.

They Sony is a great consumer/pro-sumer camera IMO, but I find no big reason to take it over a Nikon/Canon.

Most people think that way, which is unfortunate.

Can you tell me what specifically is missing from Sony/Minolta lens offerings, especially offerings what would be relevant to a first-time, non-pro (or even semi-pro) DSLR buyer? Unless you are doing photography for a living full-time, there isn't really anything you're losing out on. And in the event that you DO decide that you've found your calling and go pro, a consumer-level DSLR and one (perhaps two) lenses isn't "locking in" your brand.

That'* why I said personally I would prefer them . I agree, for the average person who wants a nice camera to do all sorts of shots with, and have lens options there'* no reason not to consider it. While the Sony setup has nice glass options, the big two have some downright wicked pieces. I'd also want to upgrade bodies over the year. There not bad at all, but unless there'* a huge point that sets the sony above the rest, like crazy nice high ISO performance, image processing, full frame vs crop, then I personally don't have much to go that route with.

I personally, (not a recommendation, just what I would do if it were me) would probably go with a D80 or it'* future replacement this year. I've worked a lot with Nikons, I Like their feature set, ergonomics, and I think they have some very good glass in lenses I'd be looking at. Not really brand loyalist, my new P&* I got this winter is a Canon SD1000

I'm waiting till the new XSi from Canon comes out in mid April. I was going to go with the XTi but why not wait a few more weeks and get the XSi.

One advantage to going with a Canon/Nikon is the used lens market. Thats one reason why I went Canon. In the near future I imagine all others: Oly, Sony, Samsung, etc. will have more people trading lenses.