5d mark II save the 1500 dollars and get a new lens, or get a D800E they look pretty nice.

depends how much cash you have to splash around. Will be pricey making the change, but I agree - the D800 is an incredible looking camera.

I'm hoping to get one early next year myself.

Have been a Nikon shooter for all sorts of work for the last 10 years, and no reason to complain. Nothing has broken, nothing has let me down. I think you would be happy with either, it's sort of whatever you're used to really. For me, Canon would be like re-learning how to shoot to begin with.

Stick to whatever youre used to. Canon btw according to rumors might soon be launching a 34MP cam. I would wait actually.

According to the same rumors.... in a 1D type body. at a astronomical price.

At this stage and in micro, MPs isnt important as long as its full frame and above, the 5DMII is the perfect cam for micro and general stock. The MIII, will give better AF thats all, if you need better AF that is.

For studio and commercial work, advertising, etc. I use an HD4, not by choice but demand rather.

ja ja, you can always invest in gear.
There is always better and newer gear being let loose on the market.

If you choose Canon or Nikon doesnt matter, both can produce quality far above what is needed at microstock.
But it is worth to remember that the payback per file is very low and it can be hard to earn back an investment.

For me? I produce cheap files with cheap equipment. That means an old Nikon d 200 and a 18-200 mm lens and it also means that when I drop them on the floor so they break, I buy a new old d 200 and a new old 18-200.

If you want to invest, I suggest you invest in lights and software: Topaz, Helicon, Photomatix. There is much more money to be earned in mastering software than hardware.

I invested in a 7D in april... the investment/money were recuperated in two months. the sigma lens ( 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM) in two weeks (all out of stock). i have lights transmitters and other gadgets for controlled light conditions. I do microstock for more than 2 years now and 80% of my stock revenue were reinvested in gear/ shooting sessions. Now finally the 2 years work starting to pay out.

 I save now to arrange a studio ( dedicated mainly to stock).
Regarding software/hard i use a HP workstation with a good monitor and Photoshop CS5 with some useful plugins ( including Topaz Denoise)

The only thing that remains is the camera.... stay with canon or go with the Nikon.

I did not say "The cheaper the better". I advocate investments that can pay back. Investments that can do the job, not overdo it.
I also suggested such an investment might not be in hardware, but maybe rather in software or light.

However I will argue, that is its not the gear, but the eye that makes you earn money on microstock.
The eye and brain, that is. It is all about concepts and trends.

The gear is just a tool.
And yes, there is no doubt that a nikon d 800 is far better than the old d 200, but I have learned to compensate via software and technique.
+ you cannot have it all: You cannot pay both a new boat, a new car, a new house and fishing gear, guns and furniture. Whatever. If you do not take pleasure in collecting gear, it is important to be selective. And Im too old to find it interesting to chase new hardware and things.

Which is why, back then when I was a spare time farmer, I had pigs. They earn their money back, horses and dogs dont.

However, the filesize argument for RM is correct.
But for micro, the newest first and fancy full frame crap, does not hold water.

My guess is that one of the places in the world where most investments are lost and never put to use in in the grey zone of cheap end "commercial" photography. People use their meagre earnings as an excuse to make high end investments. No farmer would ever buy a combine harvester to harvest parsley in a pot in the window.

I did not say "The cheaper the better". I advocate investments that can pay back. Investments that can do the job, not overdo it.
I also suggested such an investment might not be in hardware, but maybe rather in software or light.

However I will argue, that is its not the gear, but the eye that makes you earn money on microstock.
The eye and brain, that is. It is all about concepts and trends.

The gear is just a tool.
And yes, there is no doubt that a nikon d 800 is far better than the old d 200, but I have learned to compensate via software and technique.
+ you cannot have it all: You cannot pay both a new boat, a new car, a new house and fishing gear, guns and furniture. Whatever. If you do not take pleasure in collecting gear, it is important to be selective. And Im too old to find it interesting to chase new hardware and things.

Which is why, back then when I was a spare time farmer, I had pigs. They earn their money back, horses and dogs dont.

However, the filesize argument for RM is correct.
But for micro, the newest first and fancy full frame crap, does not hold water.

My guess is that one of the places in the world where most investments are lost and never put to use in in the grey zone of cheap end "commercial" photography. People use their meagre earnings as an excuse to make high end investments. No farmer would ever buy a combine harvester to harvest parsley in a pot in the window.

Well you know all that rubbish Cartier-Bresson said, camera is just a tool, extention of your eye, etc, went out the window with todays commercial photography, its dirt old values and has no part whatsoever in todays color photography. In those days thay didnt have to battle with noise, CA, fringing, this and that, even those days optical quality was joke, Ive got about four 45 year old Leica lenses here and not one would pass todays QC.

As a full time commercial photographer you got three options, either invest in equipment or give it to the tax-man or cooking the books. I know what I prefer.