>>2640140>>2640155welcome to /p/.
first off, this is a slow board. Note how in the busiest thread on it there were two replies between when you posted and when you bumped. This is common. Post and then go do something else for a few hours, then come back.
Now. Any modern DSLR has quite enough capability for someone just starting out. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, take your pick. Per the argument going on in this thread, Pentax wins in terms of number of features per dollar/yen/euro/etc spent. I'd get a K-50 with its kit 18-55, which'll cost you something like half of that thousand euros. Canikon have a larger lens selection, but Pentax already has more glass than you'll be able to use for starting out.
And yes, you're thinking of a macro lens. Macro lenses are primes (that is, they don't zoom at all), most commonly around 100mm focal lengths, and can focus mighty close. They're typically fast enough (a large enough aperture, usually 2.8) to blur backgrounds. All three systems have lenses like these, and they all have similar specifications. Get a camera and its kit lens for not a lot of money first, learn some stuff, then decide if you want a macro lens.
Also, just about any SLR lens can be focused manually. For most lenses (especially kit lenses), they assume you won't be doing that though, and make the focus path very short. That makes autofocus faster, but makes manual focusing extraordinarily finicky. Also the viewfinders are optimized to be clear with slow lenses, not to show accurate depth-of-field. Macro lenses are better, since close up AF is less reliable and lots of times manual focus works better.
If you enjoy manual focus for the sake of it, Nikon and Pentax use the same lens mount as they did in the days before autofocus, so you can get old 1970s glass that was designed to be used that way. But don't go buying a bunch of crap until you decide if you even like this.
