Howdy,
I have been using a d40x for just under three years now. I've decided to start saving money in order to invest in new/better equipment. With the talks of the d90 replacement, I have found my self puzzled on whether I should upgrade my body or my glass. I wouldn't call my self a professional by any means, but I am a serious amateur, who has on occasion sold prints (~$50/ photo), as well as taken portraits on commission (generally by friend's parents who don't want to pay absurd prices for "professional" senior portraits etc. for ~$75 for a session (includes CD of favorite photos for unlimited prints)).
Examples of my work can be seen on my website; {Link Removed}. Mind you, this is a new website currently under construction and does not reflect my full range of photography. Some of this work also includes some older photography from a Fujifilm S5200(point and shoot), specifically the photos in the Guatemala and Misc Travel galleries.
I have recently upgraded my kit lenses (older versions of the 18-55 and 55-200, ie. non-vr) to the Tamron 18-270 and Nikon 35mm f1.8. (most of the photography on my site was not shot with these new lenses, but the older ones)
My question to you is this; based on my work (from my website) as well as my status as a photographer (primarily a hobbyist who has on occasion made money off photography), do you think I would be better benefited from new glass or saving for a better body (would probably end up going with d90 replacement)?
Other things to consider:
Recently, much of my photography has been cave photography (see examples on site), and with the limited low-light capability of the d40x, I could benefit from higher low-light capabilities.
Now I know this is a question that is much debated and many other posts have asked the same question, but I am asking specifically based off my work/ status, what is your opinion?
Thanks in advance,
ZRB