Good camera with cheap lense vs cheap camera with good lense?

I'm never use any detachable lense camera before because been using compact one all the while but now i want to learn to use it for micro images. My budget can't get me all the good stuff hence I can only opt for mixture of the title said.
Can anyone advise please, my brand preference are Nikon and Canon.

If that's your only options, then I'd go for a good lens. The lens is the most important part of the imaging system & will improve images far more than the body will.

The skills of the photographer are also critical in getting the best out of any system.

There's no such thing as a "good" cheap camera - that doesn't exist. Quality is expensive in anything made.
In cameras good starts at about $600 and goes up… Great starts at about $4,000 and goes up.

I would recommend that you go for the great lens, but if you are considering a digital camera, a poor camera body will negate any advantage the lens had. With film, a fair camera body with a great lens could do just as well as an expensive camera in terms of picture quality. Obviously I don't know your budget, but you might want to consider a camera like the Nikon FM10, or any number of high-quality used cameras, including Nikon's own FM2, FM, or any of the older F cameras.