The inexpensive close-up filters are utter crap. The ones that cost $25 for a set of 4 or 6 are the worst. They're best used for skeet shooting targets or air hockey pucks. Lousy for photographs. Image quality sucks. I don't recommend them at all. Waste of money.

There are higher quality "diopters" that produce better images, but are usually sold individually and aren't cheap. For example, Canon makes two different strengths in several sizes. But their "500D" and "250D" cost around $75 each in the smallest sizes and well over $100 in the larger sizes. I think Canon is discontinuing these, because fewer and fewer of them are on retailer websites. Look for other brands like Heliopan, Nisi, Marumi, Raynox. Note that the filter strength often depends upon the focal length of the lens it will be used upon.

However, even the "best" close-up filters will have some effect on image quality. If you want this for a camera that has a non-interchangeable lens and want closer focus, you have no choice but to use a close-up filter. Do some research online for what other people with your camera have used and get the very best close-up filter you can.

However, if you are using an interchangeable lens camera such as a DSLR or mirrorless, there are better alternatives I'd recommend instead. One that I'd strongly suggest you consider "macro extension tubes". These have no optics to effect image quality and simply fit between the lens and the camera to allow the lens to focus much closer. Macro extension tubes are sometimes sold singly, but more often can be found in a set of two or three (occasionally more) that are usually the best value.

There are two major types of macro extension tubes: those without electronics to support much of the functionality in modern lenses and those with the electronics (and in some cases a mechanical connection to the lens). The non-electronic type are cheap (often $25 or less for a set), but I DO NOT recommend them for most modern camera systems. With these "dumb" tubes there is no autofocus and, more importantly, aperture control with many modern systems. They can be fine with vintage, fully mechanical lenses, but are nearly impossible to use well with most modern gear.

Assuming your camera and lenses are a major brand and made within the last 20 years, one good brand of macro extension tubes are Kenko. Your camera maker may offer their own tubes, but they are usually only sold singly and often are really expensive. For the cost of one of those, you can get the set of two or three Kenko, which are virtually the same quality. The Kenko set of three for DSLR systems includes 12mm, 20mm and 36mm tubes. How long tube (or combination of tubes) you use depends upon how high magnification you want, as well as the focal length and native close-focusing ability of your lens. Longer focal lengths, especially those that aren't terribly close focusing, can require a lot of extension. Very short focal lengths can use very little.

The Kenko set of three tubes for DSLRs sells for about $130. There also are more affordable ones (~$75) from other companies like Vello, Meike, etc. that can work fine, though they sometimes a bit more plasticky and less well made, so may not be as durable over the long run. I use a set of Kenko tubes that's at least 15 years old. They are virtually identical design and quality as some far more expensive Canon tubes I also use. I also have some Viltrox tubes for a mirrorless camera that seem quite well made and high quality, but only recently got them and so far haven't shot much with them.

As mentioned, macro extension tubes have no internal optics to "mess with" your image quality. They do lead to some "light falloff", but most camera metering systems automatically compensate for that. Depending upon the lens they are used upon, they also may lead to some vignetting and softer image corners. This is simply because you are forcing a non-flat field lens to focus closer that it's designed to do. Usually stopping the lens down, which is often necessary anyway in order to have sufficient depth of field, will reduce or eliminate these effects. But the vignetting and corner softness actually can be useful at times.

Probably the main benefit of macro extension tubes, compared to close-up filters, is the tubes' versatility. A close-up filter in a specific size may only fit one or two of your lenses, though you may be able to use step rings to adapt to some others that are close to the same diameter. It also will be limited to certain focal lengths. For example I think the Canon 250D was recommend for lenses from 35mm to 100mm, while their weaker 500D was recommended for 70mm to 300mm lenses. (I have one 77mm 500D that I use occasionally with one particular lens.) In comparison, over the years I've used macro extension tubes on lenses ranging from 20mm to 500mm. A 12mm tube on a 20mm lens makes it so close focusing that flower petals were in focus when touching the front element of the lens! A 36mm extension tube on a 500mm telephoto merely "improves" it's close focusing ability from around 20 ft. to roughly 16 feet. (I could have added more extension tubes, if needed... but am careful stacking a bunch of them with heavy gear that puts a lot of strain on the bayonet mounts and tubes.)

I would guess I bought my first set of macro extension tubes around 35 or 40 years ago. After learning to use them, which was easy with some experimentation, I wouldn't want to be without them. Whatever camera system I'm using, I always have a few of the tubes tucked into my camera bag. They don't cost much, weigh much or take up much space and you never know when they might come in handy. They even can be helpful when using a true macro lens, to make it able to focus a little closer. But they especially come in handy you come across something small that you want to shoot, but didn't anticipate that and left the macro lens at home.

EDIT: Macro bellows and "helicoids" (sometimes called "macro zoomers" by retailers) are merely extension tubes that can be adjusted in length. They work the same way as the rigid tubes discussed above. However, there can be a problem with modern systems where camera and lens communicate electronically. There are some useful bellows made for modern systems, but they tend to be VERY expensive. Novoflex is a company that makes these for various systems and they start around $1000! Like the extension tubes, there are also much less expensive bellows (under $100). However, just like the cheap tubes, these cheap bellows do not support the functionality of modern electronically controlled systems. No autofocus... not really a problem since manual focus is often better anyway. However, no means of controlling the lens aperture is a major problem in most cases!

Bellows also are fairly large and bulky, as well as somewhat fragile to use in the field. They usually need to be used on a tripod and might require other accessories such as a focusing rail. Bellows are able to provide a lot of extension and produce quite high magnification (up to about 5X, depending upon the lens... BTW, Canon makes a specialized "MP-E" 65mm macro lens able to do 5X that's sort of a modern substitute for a bellows.)

Helicoids are not very common. I've only seen them offered occasionally for a few of the most popular camera systems and haven't personally tried the modern ones (I used two or three different ones many years ago, with mechanical systems). All the modern ones I've seen have a pretty modest range of adjustability (usually around 45mm to 65 or 70mm), but do appear to try to maintain camera and lens electronic communication. Some other helicoids I've seen DO NOT have the electronic connectivity, so will have the same problem as the "dumb" extension tubes and bellows.

While all the above can work pretty well, a "true macro lens" is usually able to make superior images. This is for several reasons. One of the most important is that macro lenses are generally flat field designs. The optics are tweaked to provide sharpness from corner to corner at close distances. They also usually often have "long throw" focus (both auto and manual) that's slower but more precise, because focus accuracy can be really critical at higher magnifications where depth of field becomes quite shallow.

Still, tubes and high quality close up lenses can be a useful alternative that's lower cost, lighter weight and more compact than a macro lens.

Personally, I prefer a simple neck strap, Upstrap is my personal choice. However, when I'm carrying my camera on that strap, I'm totally aware of it being there. In the 50+ years of carrying my camera with merely a neck strap, I've never come close to any mishaps. It comes down to situational awareness.

Additionally, the neck strap places the camera such that I can grab it and shoot, should the situation warrant that. I don't have to unhook it, change my grip, and then start to photograph.
--Bob

I’m going to have to disagree on the Rolex. My wife gave me a stainless Submariner about 25-30 years ago, and it’s now worth about 10x what she paid for it. But most importantly, it works exactly like the day it was bought - never serviced, and I’ve worn it diving (to 100’), sailing and every day in the shower since - indestructible, and that’s the pleasure of owning a fine device, just like a good camera (Canon, Fuji and Mamiya in my case). Nothing to do with “bling”. I will pass it along to my son, just like my cameras.

Try to find a rubber band that fits snugly around the filter. Put it right next to the lens so you are exerting the energy on the threaded part of the filter and not the rotating part of the filter. A rubber band that is a little wider than normal works best. When you grip it to rotate the filter off, don't squeeze it too hard. Believe it or not, this can tend to distort the metal threaded ring on the filter, thus binding it tighter against the threads on the lens barrel. Wrap your hand around the lens barrel up near the point where the lens and filter connect. This can warm the barrel with your body heat and cause it to expand a little. When you start twisting on the filter, try to exert only enough pressure to keep the rubber band from slipping.

This has worked for me more than once. Filters really need to be taken off frequently and re-mounted to reduce this problem.