Either camera would be fine for microstock, as would those from other manufacturers.  I have used the Canon digital rebels for years and they are fine for microstock - small, light weight and cheap.  Great travel cameras.  I don't have recent experience with Nikon but they are probably just as good as Canon and maybe better in some respects - I would try them both out before making a decision.  You won't be wrong whichever way you go.

A couple things to consider.  If you are using them in a studio, the Canons at that level don't have direct connections for external strobes so you will need to get an adaptor if you want to use something more powerful than a speedlight.  Also if you do video the Canon will only shoot a maximum of 30 fps - if you want to shoot at 60 fps for slow motion then they probably are not the best choice.  Canon lenses also often have a lot more CA than expected for the price.  That can be dealt with in post but is a nuisance.  Not sure how Nikon compares with those but the type of shooting you will do definitely will have an impact.  Of course if you are just starting you may not know what you will be shooting until you've done it a while, and by then you will want a new camera anyway.  I would try to keep costs down if you want to make any money in micriostock these days - that should be your first consideration.

Not exactly on fire but doing significantly better than previous years and fighting for second place with Canva.  I haven't submitted anything in over a year so it is not due to new files.

I had 12 for $7.44, so about $0.62 per sale.  They haven't shown up on any of the monthly tallies so who knows what that means.  At least they are providing the corrections, just would be nice to know a bit more and how that can happen.

No, it just means that you know how often they have been licensed and to whom, and you can't know that if they are ever RF. But they can be RM on many sites as mentioned by sharpshot.  Also make sure your RM shots are different from the ones that are RF - they should not be too similar.

I uploaded 10 videos yesterday evening - no problem.  Hopefully it is working for Alpha now too.

If the rejection was for lighting then resubmitting as commercial won't help.  I think they are probably too light, or too flat as Zero Talent stated - bring down the blacks.  Those kinds of images are best done HDR, and of course you can't submit those as editorial so commercial might give you a better chance.

I haven't been able to log in there for several months but haven't cared enough to bother sorting it out

Not dying - dead, unfortunately.  So far this month I have had four sub sales totaling $1.40 - that it the worst probably since my first month with them in 2009.  It's too bad.  I liked their levels system where you could get decent amounts for higher-level images, and it makes sense to charge more for popular images.  I appreciated their similars policy and deleting images that haven't sold in four years in an attempt to keep the database clean and relevant.  Of course I hated getting similars rejections but at least I can understand the goal.  Unfortunately for DT (and us!), SS's approach of having a huge database that is sorted out with an efficient algorithm and uniform prices for images regardless of downloads seems to be more popular with buyers.  DT had a decent bump last year with their Google deal but that appears to be a one-off thing and the ELs from that deal so far were few and at only $6 not particularly good for contributors - not the boon we were led to expect, anyway.  I hope they can turn it around and get back in the game (without diminishing contributor returns!) but am not optimistic.  Glad the previous poster had a good day there today - hope that becomes the norm.

And we've had at least one President pronounce "nuclear" as "nucular" - drove me crazy (along with almost everything else that one did!)

I assume at some point it will reach a sort of equilibrium, and maybe then it will be worth it to submit again.  In the meantime, the largest collections will soon reach over 100 million images, covering virtually every subject and every location on Earth - how many more do they need?  There will always be a need for new styles, new images of old locations, news, etc., but nothing like what was needed in the past - most demand can be satisfied easily by current inventory.  When I first started with SS seven years ago, they had I think around 4 million images and were adding 80,000 per week - both seemed like huge numbers at the time.  Now it is 60 million and over 700,000 per week - how can we keep up?  With subscriptions I suspect many buyers now have their own photo libraries with thousands of images that can satisfy many of their needs for years without paying another dime to anybody, or they can just use images for free from flickr - I have seen a lot of that recently, even in articles by firms that can easily pay.  Or they will just take a pic with their cell phones and call it good enough - when I see all the poor images in published ads and articles with terrible lighting, softness, noise, it is quite clear that quality standards of buyers are much lower than those of image inspectors at the agencies.  I think for contributors the writing has been on the wall for the past couple of years at least and it is only going to get worse - Yuri was very smart to cut the deal he did when he did it.

At some point this will decrease new contributions to the level that the agencies will take notice and do something about it.  We have already seen iS relax standards, SS and other agencies lower their minimum amounts for payout.  I certainly would never encourage anyone to go into microstock any longer and I can't imagine it is very profitable for many people nowadays.  Production will shift to countries with lower costs and to those who can keep to a minimal budget.  Nobody will include expensive props if they can't make back their money, regardless of labor costs (or your own opportunity costs).  Instead those images will go to macro or the micro agencies will have to start paying more.

At that stage microstock may get back where it belongs - low prices for low-cost images produced with entry-level equipment and a minimum of effort.  Hopefully at that point it will still make sense for those who stick it out.  If the agencies perceive lack of new content as a problem I'm sure they will do something about it but in the meantime they can just rake in the profits and pay contributors the minimum.

Happy New Year everyone, and hats off to all those who stick it out!  Best wishes to you all for 2016.

Good job - congratulations!

I didn't even know they did video - this is a good reason to not bother.  For stills I get a few refunds per year, the last one was in Sept.  In almost 7 years with SS (and most other agencies) I've never had  a refund - not sure why they occur so commonly with DP, iS and Alamy.  How do they know this isn't  about stealing footage?  Presumably the DL goes through and there is no way to know what happens to the file after that.  I suppose it could be that the sale gets credited but then the credit card is refused and the DL doesn't go through but that is not what they have stated so far.

Sorry to hear about your refunds - it is always disappointing with high-value sales.