The lens he mentioned would excel at the second of your tasks, reproducing your finished work for publication. This lens is designed largely for copy work so it has little distortion, high resolving power and low curvature of field which is needed for photographing flat objects like paintings. It would also give a relatively normal perspective to what the eye sees, but perhaps not the same relative angle of view the eye sees. For that you may want a wider lens, but then perspective becomes distorted compared to the eye. Wide angle and zoom lenses generally have way too much distortion to excel at copy work.
For the best dynamic range (ie capture the most between light and dark), the d800 and d600 would be at the top of the list. But it seems you may also want something small and light given your Fuji choice. It seems from the reviews that the Fuji's unique sensor is rather poor at resolving fine detail especially with natural detail you'd find in landscapes. My guess is that the fuji's might be better suited for people pictures. That and relative to similar cameras, they are more premium priced so they represent less bang for the buck so to speak.
I'm afraid if you want something that excels at all the tasks you mention you're budget might not suit. But for a compromise, perhaps something like a nex 6 with the sigma 19mm for your scenery and a macro lens for reproduction of your finished work.
Edit: actually perhaps the Olympus om-d em-5 would be a good choice as there seem to be a greater variety of good lenses than for the Sony nex system. I'm not that familiar with their lenses but for $ 2000 you just might be able to get a good wide zoom like a 9-18mm (18-35 in full frame 35mm terms) for scenery reference and a good 30mm macro (which is 60mm in full frame) for reproduction. The smaller sensor would also be good for getting everything from foreground to background sharp and in focus.