Btw I don't think the photo is that good, just wanted to show off my "Getting subjects to look straight at me" skills to Light!
Soon you'll be equipped with a DSLR.
I have you severely outgunned at the moment, equipment wise.
So I don't expect you to run out and get an image of a fruit fly.
They are less than an eighth of an inch long. Which is why I thought it was a gnat.
You will see a lot of people here say that the camera or the equipment isn't important.
That is bullchavic. Plain and simple.
Yes the photographer plays a huge role in capturing the image, but if you don't have the right equipment to capture it with, you're spinning your wheels.
That is why I strongly suggest that you look at the Tamron 90mm macro as your first lens purchase.
Tamron also makes a beautiful 180mm macro that is a beautiful lens which I have used before on a nikon body and can attest to its image quality.
Nikon makes a very affordable 40mm also. ( the cheapest of the bunch, yet quality).
I would also think hard about that 3100 you're about to buy.
Just like I told you before you got the new camera you have now, you would want something better in no time.
It didn't take a month.
Buy that 3100, and you're gonna wish you spent the extra and got the D7000.
Believe me I know what I'm talking about.
I'm looking hard at the Nikon D4 as we speak.
I'm unsure though. I'm weighing the pros and cons of turning one into a macro rig.
Yet, it's big, bulky ( making it hard to fit in tight spaces which I am proned to do at times)
I see no ring flash for this nikon system that I would think as effective as what I have now.
I know there's something out there, I just haven't found it yet. I will always keep my K5 system.
The ring flash and commander unit is a thing of beauty, highly effective along with outstanding image quality.
I'm unsure if I would see much of a difference versus money spent.
That's being weighed in now.
But I like the D4, A LOT.
Just unsure if it would make a better macro rig than I have already.