I'm not very familiar with DPA's line, so I went to their Web site to look up the microphones you mentioned. I couldn't find any information on a model 4020 or 4021; are those discontinued models, perhaps?
At any rate the 4060 and 4061 appear to be subminiature omni microphones designed for close-miking and for use with pocket transmitters ("wireless mike" systems). They're not studio microphones in the usual sense; they're rather special-purpose items. Are you sure these are really the models you're interested in? Capsules that small have noise levels higher than you might expect. (Sensitivity is proportional to capacitance, which in turn is proportional to active surface area.) The noise values given by DPA as "typical" for these models are 23 and 26 dB A-weighted (and presumably rms); they also say that the actual values for any given microphone may be about 2 dB worse than these "typical" values. By comparison, the Schoeps CMC 62 S has an A-weighted noise specification of 12 dB, i.e. some 11 to 14 dB quieter, not even counting the 2 dB that DPA allow for individual sample variations.
And with the Schoeps mike, you've got the option of using almost two dozen other types of capsules on the same body, whereas this series of DPA's microphones isn't modular--if you want a pair of cardioids or some other pattern, you set aside what you have and buy a whole new microphone.
So I frankly think that the only strong reason to prefer the DPA in this particular comparison would be if you absolutely needed your microphones to be that small, and could ignore the much higher noise levels that come with that choice.
But if you need your microphones to be that small, why would you be considering Schoeps as an alternative? Frankly, I'm puzzled.
--best regards