Good shots.
I use a smaller camera for this sort of thing as well; at least you get to choose the depth of field instead of always having bits out of focus.
Using a wide-angle lens can be a bit of a pain when you are dealing with the more skittish beasties, but I still manage the odd macro-ish photo at 42 or 28mm.
You've perfected wide angle macro photography, I know your work well :)
I suppose Olympus' four thirds cameras should be perfect for macro photography, but when there's less light, the image quality is noticeably poor.
What's the best macro photography kit in your opinion?
For sheer optical quality, nothing beats the old Nikon 200mm macro lens, the Nikon 200mm f/4 ED-IF AF Micro-NIKKOR. I think it is still in production, costs about $1700, I think.
Other than that, it depends a bit on how close you want to get. I'm really happy with my Olympus Stylus 1s and XZ-1 and their macro modes, and I have used quite a few cameras over the years. I don't mind working around the limitations of smaller sensors for macro photography (1/1.7" and 1/1.63" respectively).
I must add that these days, I only use cameras I can carry around with me all day, and that limits the choice a bit.
I must admit, I'm starting to feel the same way. But I just don't like the image quality of micro four thirds cameras... Maybe a Fuji XT with a normal angle prime would be the best fit for me, although it's not much smaller than Nikon's popular bodies.
Image quality is good enough at lower ISOs, and ISO400 is already a luxury for me, as I used to shoot Ilford FP4+ ISO125 film exclusively.
I now use auto ISO limited to 100-320 and that's fine. The Stylus 1s is OK up to ISO400 and the XZ-1 up to ISO200. I never print larger than 25 x 38cm and use 8 to 10MP for that, so no problem there either.
And I complain about too much noise at 1600 ISO :)
You know, I almost never print. I don't know what to do with the photos - I'd hate to put them in a photo book and forget about them. I already do that with my hard drive :)