I need a camera for close up photos, something digital, easy to use, etc.  Suggestions?

Macro lens.
nikon D300 and 60mm Micro lens would be awesome.

you don't need a special camera for close-up photos.  use photo editing to crop and zoom in on objects.  i'm not an expert, but i know that with digital cameras, most of the work is done with the editing software.  the camera just gives you an image to work with.

Yep, get an SLR with a macro lens, or get a point and shoot with a decent macro feature.

I took this pic with a Canon XSi and a Canon 100mm EF USM Macro lens, this was one of my first attempts at macro pics



(it's a spider on the end of a Q-tip...)

Uh...sorry, but this is wildly incorrect.

Any macro (electronic - no swapping lenses).

The pic below is from a 6 year old Olympus 4.2 MP,using the Super Macro setting.  You have to have a tripod or some way to steady the camera.

Note the criss-cross patternon the surface of the casino chip.  Very detailed.





ETA: the camera was $400 years ago, and an SLR is serious coin ($800+).  A cheaper camera with the built in macro is all you need if that's all you neeed to do.  It takes regular pics very well also.

Yes - not correct.  You need a large photo to get detail.  You can make big small, but not small big - it just pixelates and looks terrible.

how can you say it's incorrect when the op didn't say what he wanted to take pictures of?  i know there is a lot of specialized micro photography equipment, but for general use my methods have worked just fine - and that's how most people do it.  go ahead and recommend a 2000.00 camera, i don't care.  just trying answer the op's question.

Cannon A-series point and shoot cameras have very good macro lenses.  I can get the lens so close that my biggest problem is the lens either touching what the subject is resting on or blocking out too much light.

I took these with my Canon A720is.  The first picture shows the size and the 2nd shows about as close as you can reasonably get.  I think it will actually focus closer but lighting became my problem.  Note that the depth of field is down to mm's at this point.  FWIW that is a broken striker from a S&W M&P9c.

Uncropped but shrank to a reasonable size.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e24/Triaged/MP9c/MP9c_BrokenStriker3.jpg

Cropped a bit from a different, closer exposure.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e24/Triaged/MP9c/MP9c_BrokenStriker.jpg

What difference does it make what the OP wants to take pictures of? What I was disagreeing with was the idea that editing software does the majority of the work in digital photography, and that the camera merely records an image.

Yes, a macro lens with an SLR is a must.  I am an old film photog from the old days.  



With an SLR, either a macro lens or an extension tube is needed.  An extension tube pulls the lens away from the focal plane, adding to its focus range.  The lens will not focus except at very close to the lens.  There is a loss of light gathering as the speed drops since the aperture value is only valid at infinity focus.  Since the apeture says the same and the focal length increases, the f ratio (focal length to apeture) increases.



When the focal length increases, depth of field decreases, making focus critical.  This is why you need an SLR.  Focus.



Then we have depth of field.  This also decreases with increasing focal length...and so does camera shake.



I've done some impressive stuff with just a 55 f 2.8 Micro Nikor and a PN-11 extension tube, shooting Ecktachrome 50.  This makes greater than lifesize images...photograph a dime and the image on the slide is larger than a dime.  Blow that up on a projector and 500x magnification is clearly available.  But you better have a powerful flash and bright lights.