You don't really get 66% more resolution with the D60... just 66% more dots. At max resolution you get the following number of vertical and horizontal pixels:

D40 = 3,008 X 2000 = 6,016,000 (6MP)
D60 = 3,872 X 2592 = 10,036,224 (10MP)

So you really only get an extra 872 vertical lines of resolution 3,872 / 3008 = about 28% more resolution. A typical photo lab can print about 300 DPI meaning you can print about 10 X 6.5 with the D40 or 12.9 X 8.5 with the D60 before you start losing resolution.

By comparison, my computer monitor here at work displays:

1280 X 1024 = 1,310,720 (1.3 MP)

Which means that both cameras have far more resolution than needed for viewing on the web.

Just wanted to be clear.

I got to use a D60 for a couple of weeks when it first came out last year. I had lots of fun using the built in stop-motion movie mode. I miss that feature. The size and weight balance with my 2.8 sigma 18-50mm was nice too.

That's cool. You won't be missing out much from the D40 other than the slightly faster flash sync speed.

Well after comparing both and reading everyones thoughts,I have decided on the D60. The slightly higher resolution is nice but the sensor cleaning was a big plus especially given the "take everywhere" plans I have for it. Thanks folks.

ChrisLange, he has a D200 and a D700 though.

Do you really think the D90 really compares to the D700? If he wanted quality, he would have picked up a D3 or D3x.

You can't go wrong with either the D40 or D60.

that's true adamz. I should have known that considering I crop a lot.

gentoo indeed there's not too much difference between d40 and d60 but 4Mpx is a lot, especially when You crop images, i.e. try to crop 40% of 10mpx image and You gonna get 6Mpx which is suitable for A3 prints, with 6mpx You gonna get only 4Mpx which is pretty much good for anything up to A4 (or US Letter)

D60 is not much different than the D40. 10 vs. 6 MP, a rudimentary Active D Lighting, but that's about it. Megapixels have to be at least doubled before any differences can be seen.

The only problem with the D60 was that it was invented just to fill a price gap, its not a very extraordinary camera...

The D60 would be a nice camera.

I mean, you don't want something large right?

The D90 is still fairly large compared to the D60. The D40 is behind in image quality already, so it's not really an option.

I just carry the D300 and have good insurance.

It covers lost/damaged/stolen...

-- Dave

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it ;)

I agree with adamz.

d60 if you don't need high iso, d90 if You need to take snaps at iso 800 or above

D90 would be my recommendation.

I have a D300 and have also considered they same issue. I though would not buy the D40, I am considering buying the D60. Not much difference in price now, but the D60 is newer and has a few more features.

I am looking for "a take everywhere" camera that is small, durable and won't break the bank if it's stolen, lost or damaged. I have a D700 and D200 but they a both a burden to carry when I travel. I was thinking of the D40 but not sure if it will deliver the quality I'm used to. Any thoughts?