Id like to buy a Nikon D40 or D60 and would appreciate your advice on whether one would be better than the other as they're very similar. Im also puzzled by a few things Ive read in comparisons that dont seem to make sense, but as Im a noob in the dSLR field I hesitate to question them. The smaller size and lighter weight of these two cameras is important. Any cameras of better quality are bigger and heavier and wont get used. I have an old Nikon FE and a digital p&s but have been impressed with the quality of the newer dSLRs and I can now afford to move over. Given I always wanted a standard zoom for my old Nikon, I shall begin with the 18-55mm VR kit lens which doesnt have a bad write-up, and go on from there. I don't want to choose on the basis of cost. I occasionally make DVDs from still photos of travels. The 6m pixels of the Fuji p&s is enough to zoom well in from an already-cropped photo on a 42 widescreen TV, and any large pictures I wanted would probably be posters so would not need to be printed at full resolution, so 6m pixels is probably enough, but 10 might be handy if it doesnt cause any extra problems. I take mostly landscape, but also some family and I'd like to do some macro as well. Oh, and the cats! I dont want to use any of my old lenses as I only have a 50mm prime (I might part with the old Nikon and lens) and an old bulky something200mm zoom lens from Tamron (theyre much smaller now). Id like to start again. Id appreciate your advice on some comments written by Ken Rockwell. Yes I know his reports are subjective but hes comparing the two cameras Im looking at and seems to think the D60 is a waste of space compared with the D40. I dont know, though, if his views are overshadowed by his fondness for his D40. He says: 1. The D40 is better because its faster sync speed with flash helps the flash get enough power to balance with direct sunlight when used as fill in (also that it stops motion better when using flash but Im not too worried about that). My thoughts are that flash fill in only works for short distances - isnt this counteracted by the ADR in the D60? This is a feature which he likes in one of his other Nikons. 2. The D40 has double the light sensitivity in normal use ISO 200 base v ISO 100 base in the D60. Is there a reason why the D60 cant just be turned to ISO 200 and left there if needed? I dont understand the problem. 3. Dust reduction is just fluff rolleyes: do you think the pun was intended?) and not necessary. Id be interested to know your thoughts on this. Many thanks, and apologies if this is a bit long!