What Kind of Equipment Would You Recommend .....

Let me begin by saying that I've never owned a dedicated macro equipment, though I have taken macro shots. Secondly, this might not be what you want to hear, but you can either take snapshots, or photographs. The former is quick/possibly-documentary/not-always-of-top-quality, while the latter is more time-consuming/better-though-not-always-of-top-quality.

Moving on...here are some tips:
- Most good quality macro photographs throw the background out of focus, to make the subject more prominent. You do this by getting really close to the subject, and selecting a background that's uncluttered and as far from the subject as possible.
- The "getting really close to the subject" I mention above can be achieved by 1) physically getting close to your subject, or 2) using a telephoto lens to virtually get really close to your subject.
- Now, the problem with the above is that the closer you get to a subject the harder it gets to maintain focus, because 1) every lens has a minimum close focusing point, 2) the depth of field (i.e. the area in which things are in focus) is quite shallow, 3) even a slight movement of the camera while taking the photo will move the subject quite rapidly, and 4) swaying back and forth, even a little bit, will throw the focus point outside the depth of field.
- To fix the above problems, you need to do the following: Use a tripod (I know this is a no-no for you, but maybe you can invest in one of those "gorilla pods") or try and prop your hands/elbows against something (e.g. a tree, the ground) for extra stability. Use a macro lens, which has a really small near-focus distance, with a camera that can mount one, though in this particular case you'll probably want to use a tripod or you'll get motion blur.

Rule number one for traditional flower photography is to take it with the lens parallel to the stem of the flower. To achieve that, I would suggest buying a camera with the articulated screen. This way you don't have to lay down on the ground to see what you are taking a picture of. Buy fully articulated screen, as opposed to only one angle of rotation.

For small camera I would go with the Nikon P7800, which has a little larger sensor than the smallest possible. I call it the Cargo Pants camera. For Shirt Pocket Camera (no articulated screen) S120 from Canon is the best.

For the most versatile camera in terms of focal range, nothing beats Canon SX 60HS. You do sacrifice on quality as the sensor is the smallest one. Not pocketable.

Next step up would be Panasonic DMC-FZ1000. Still larger sensor, closeup capability, wide zoom range. Not pocketable.

Next step up would be to go with the Nikon D5300 or similar Canon plus a Sigma new 18-300 lens, which has macro capability.

After that we are entering the heavy bulky expensive category of prosumer and professional photography...

Also wanted to mention Coolpix AW120 - Waterproof (not in salt water and not deep), shock and cold/heat proof camera. Don't expect great quality there, but a lot of times it makes a difference between a decent shot and no shot at all...

Read the somewhat controversial article by Kevin Adams here about flower photography: www.kadamsphoto.com/photography_techniques/photo_howto_articles.htm

Always remember, when it comes to picture quality, camera sensor's size is the most important feature...