Hi:

Because of my work, I have a variety of cameras with zoom and some true
macro lenses, both film and digital.

I have no doubt that digital cameras will probably replace film for day to
day use - point and shoot, no film, no waiting, no cost - until you get to
the printing.

The first digital cameras and the current supply of cheap ones have pretty
low resolution - but work ok for web pages - since browsers and monitors
are not likely to be set for millions of colors and the finest resolution
-- and for web images, this is a mute point, because download times for
high resolution pictures are so slow that most people will stop the download.

Most of the images on web sites are further compressed into jpg files,
which may reduce the size of the file by 100 fold or more. Just don't
expect this same image to print out a poster-sized picture.

The higher resolution digital cameras (3-4 Megapixels) are turning out some
good pictures (3.3 MgPixel Nikon cost nearly $1000).  But, it still has
relatively simple lenses and offers only clip on lenses for wider angel and
true macro.  I'd put its image quality about on a par with a good quality
point and shoot 35 mm film camera - the ones with a built in wide angle to
telephoto zoom lens costing about $150-300 for camera and lens.

Now, if 3x5 or 4x5 pictures and web images are your main interest, then you
will probably really like the high res digital cameras, especially those
with optical zoom.  Go for as much optical zoom as you can get.  The
digital zoom is a poor approximation of a good lenses.

However, 35 mm and other film cameras are not dead yet.  If you want
extremely fine detail, interchangeable lenses, filters, etc., the top line
35s are almost impossible to beat.  With these, you can push your pictures
to poster size, assuming you have a good lens, enough light, etc.  We have
large prints of bees  and you can count the hairs on the bee.  My digital
Nikon can't come close to the quality.  But, you wouldn't notice much
difference on small prints.

The key at this time are the lenses available for film cameras.  The
digital cameras are slow to produce an affordable digital camera body with
interchangeable lenses.  I assume it will come.

As per add on lenses, bellows, reversed lenses - all work, some better than
others.  A true macro lens (if you can afford it), couples to the camera
and light readings, focus, etc. are all through the camera - no guessing.
With some of the other set ups, you may have to get out your calculator to
figure out the light drop-off.

Flash helps, but tends to leave a black background and highlights
(sometimes where you don't want them).  Ring flashes provide even
illumination at the end of the lens, but may flatten the subject (because
of uniform light from all sides).  However, the newer ring flashes can be
set to vary the light output around the ring - eliminating some of the fuss
of having 2 or more flashes on brackets outboard from the camera.

A good macro lens is often a 100 or 180 mm lens, and will give you 1:1
image (in other words), the camera can focus on an area the same size as
the image area on the 35 mm film.  So, a bee will do a pretty good job of
filling up most of the frame.  The newest technology is a lens that starts
at 1:1 and goes to 5:1. Obviously, depth of field is very shallow with this
lens.

Finally, you can use 800ASA film to stop action (but the grain is likely to
look like a gravel field in a large print), or you can use a slower, fine
grain film. But, that almost mandates use of flash fill.

Also, you can chill bees in a fridge, but to my eye, they always look like
the taxidermy version of a live animal.  More challenging is to photograph
free flying bees.  The trick is to watch and anticipate their movements.

Cheers

Jerry