While I would love to be able to drop a $500 on a macro lens, is there something else I can get for my Canon that's much cheaper?
When people bring up the subject of cost I always remember back when I was getting started in SLR photography. I was a kid with a part time job that paid minim wage ($2.20 per hour back then) but even then I could afford things like a macro setup. Why was it affordable? Because we didn't think we needed a digital camera with "auto everything". A simple mechanical camera and lens from a second tier brand (like Minolta) was affordable even for a kid.
You know what? You can still buy an older mechanical camera (the kind that does not reqire batteries) and a macro lens for a
total of not much more than $150. Not only the good price but the image quality will be better than any DSLR you could buy today for less than $3K. (Film is by definition "full frame")
It's the same thing with the price of phone calls. Back then I'd put a dime in a payphone. Now we pre-pay $40 a month. I don't think I ever used 400 dimes in one month. TV used to be free but now we pay $50 a month to watch even more commercials. We pay much, much more now. The marketing guys really do earn their pay.
One of the nice features of Nikon is that they did not change the lens mount when they introduced autofocus. This means I can mix and match my older mechanical flm based equipment with my newer digital equipment, I don't have to have two systems
If you really wanted a macro system you could buy a used body
and a used lens for $150, easy. Used Pentax, olympus or minolta gear is dirt cheap and the quality is very high. You'd be surprised when you handle it and see that the build quality is very much better than the new Canon Rebels.