No problem. If macro photography is a big priority without breaking the bank, I would personally recommend going with either Nikon or a Sony mirrorless camera, as both have affordable "true" macro lenses- Nikon have the 40mm f/2.8 and Sony have the 30mm f/3.5, which both retail for around £180. Paired with an entry level body (D3200 or D3300 for Nikon and A5000 for Sony, both for around £250), you've got an excellent beginner's macro setup.

its not going to be great as it doesn't focus particularly closely @ around 25-30cm (probably about 1:3)
you can get some great photos but it depends what your expectations are
you can also add close up adapters etc

The camera is good for macro, the lens isn't. As mentioned above the lens cannot focus closely enough to offer a true macro perspective of a subject. You have three main options for achieving macro, or at least macro-like, results;

*The cheapest method is using extension tubes. These are essentially rings that go between the lens and the camera and reduce the lens' minimum focussing distance and can cost as little as £20 for a set. The downsides are that you lose a lot of light that you need to compensate for in the exposure, and cheaper sets usually don't have the wiring needed for controlling autofocus and aperture. Autofocus isn't necessarily a major loss since most people will focus manually with macro photography to get the sharpest results, but having the aperture stuck at its widest may mean really thin depth of field (which means only a very thin slice of the photo will be in focus, if you weren't aware) that may not be what you want. A similar product is a reversing ring, which literally let's you put the lens on backwards, which also lets you focus a lot closer at the expense of autofocus and aperture control.

*Next is using a "macro" telephoto lens that combines a long focal length and short (compared to other teles) focussing distance to offer pseudo-macro performance. You also obviously get a telephoto lens you can use too. The downsides are that you don't get true macro performance in that you can't get small things to fill as much of the frame, and the cheaper tele lenses that describe themselves as "macro" aren't always very sharp.

*The best and most obvious choice is buy a macro lens. They will autofocus well at extremely close distances, have full aperture control, and are typically really sharp. The downside is being the most expensive option.

I totally agree, I bought this camrea with a 10-18mm lens so i can take internal photos of rooms in my house for it to be advertised for sale, the results have been excellent.

Show me a full frame camera at this price that isn't a very old model. Full frame costs money. I'd say around £700+ for just the body.