I think a good HD camcorder will do a very similar job to my XL2. This is broadcast quality but standard definition compared to standard quality with high definition.
I think the lens quality is important. I can use still photography lenses on my set up including my macro lens. I used this for the close up work on the Dingy Skipper at Fontmell Down and was still several feet away from the subject.
One thing you will find with any camcorder / video camera is that in a macro mode you probably won't be able to use any zoom and when using zoom you will be limited to how close you can get to the subject. Ususally you will obtain a larger image by being further away and using the zoom of the camera. For this reason I often use a 1.6 x converter to get in effect, that little bit closer to the subject especially when they are small. Very little loss in quality occurs when using a single converter. I've tried two converters and quality suffers more as the subject gets further away. When the subject is reasonably close the quality is very acceptable.
Another thing to consider is how the image is captured and transferred to the PC. With most HD cameras you will be using USB from hard drive to hard drive or possibly better use a hybrid camera with hard drive and cards, just in case you fill the drive and cannot download it.
Transfer via USB is more prone to losing data than firwire which I use. Also miniDV tapes tend to capture more data per frame than cards and drives but as they are improving this will likely change.
You could go out and spend up to £6K on the HD version of mine or you could go and purchase a decent HD consumer camcorder for £400 - £500 that will give great results.
I'm guessing you would need to upgrade your software to cope with HD footage as well.
Hope thats given you something to think about.
Paul
Website is now back online at: http://www.ibirdz.co.uk/A%20Butterfly%20Year.html
