Canon EOS Rebel T4i 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera w/ 18-55mm EF-S IS II Lens - $599.99 + Free Shipping

T7ii coming out very soon.

I'm not sure why image quality would be vastly different, except for maybe sample variation. They all use the same sensor (not sure if there were minor tweaks to the later generation).

The Autofocus on the T4i should be much better than the T3i/T2i, particularly when not using the center point. T4i uses all cross-point type AF points (even the Full Frame 6D doesn't have this). If you're going to be focusing using anything other than the center point, get the T4i. Regardless how good/bad a lens/sensor is, an out of focus image will always look bad

The Macro lens recommendation depends on if you're going to stay with a crop sensor SLR, or are planning on going Full Frame. If you're planning on staying on crop, get the 60mm EF-S Macro, wonderful lens and very sharp. Otherwise the 100mm Canon EF Macro can still be had for slightly over $500 I believe, and is also considered to be one of Canon's very sharp lenses. If you have money to burn, get the 100mm f2.8L Macro as it has better build, but more importantly an Image Stabilizer. Best bang for the buck would be the 100mm non-L Macro though. If Canon pares back their APS-C offerings in the future as rumored then resale of EF-S lenses may drop significantly.

I take pictures on mostly small items such as jewelry for my clients, need to get some close-up details, so in this case I assume it doesn't make a difference which camera I use (T4i, T3, or T2i)? is the 60mm macro lens the right one for my purposes?

or does it even matter if I use a DSLR camera or not? would a good point and shoot still give me the same result if there is good lighting?

60mm macro is good for full frame but 100mm macro is better for crop sensors...ie t2i,3i,4i.

Also you wont see much difference so long as they are all shot with a good amount of light which id assume they are. the t4i is substantially better in low light situations though.

I take pictures on mostly small items such as jewelry for my clients, need to get some close-up details, so in this case I assume it doesn't make a difference which camera I use (T4i, T3, or T2i)? is the 60mm macro lens the right one for my purposes?

or does it even matter if I use a DSLR camera or not? would a good point and shoot still give me the same result if there is good lighting?

I take pictures on mostly small items such as jewelry for my clients, need to get some close-up details, so in this case I assume it doesn't make a difference which camera I use (T4i, T3, or T2i)? is the 60mm macro lens the right one for my purposes?

or does it even matter if I use a DSLR camera or not? would a good point and shoot still give me the same result if there is good lighting?

I think might have that backwards. 60mm on crop would be the equivalent of 96mm on Full Frame. 100mm on crop would be 160mm equivalent.

I don't think a non-DSLR will do a fantastic job of Macro shots. Depending how close you want to get the 60mm or 100mm would both work. I'd go for the 100mm. You'll likely need a tripod as well.

I might get blown up by hardcore photogs, but...
Since your shots sound like they will be still subjects, you can probably save some money if you go the extension tube route for <$100. They are much cheaper and I'm assuming you'll be using a tripod so you won't need image stabilization, nor fast focusing. I think the main noticeable difference with the tubes is clarity fades as you get away from center. You might also benefit from one of those $30-40 macro lights which attach to the end of the lens.

I got a T3i around the same time last year for $650. I sold it 6 months later for $500 around the time the T4i was announced. I then bought the T4i for christmas along with the 40mm pancake and 18-135mm STM lens. Are all the new features of the T4i worth it? No. Save your money to get lenses or a vastly better body.

You are right, I don't know what I was thinking. But either way 100mm is better because you can get in much closer.

I've been eying that lens actually and also thinking about getting the extension tube to go with it. I've seen some really wicked shots with that combo.

I might get blown up by hardcore photogs, but...
Since your shots sound like they will be still subjects, you can probably save some money if you go the extension tube route for <$100. They are much cheaper and I'm assuming you'll be using a tripod so you won't need image stabilization, nor fast focusing. I think the main noticeable difference with the tubes is clarity fades as you get away from center. You might also benefit from one of those $30-40 macro lights which attach to the end of the lens.

Apparently it works reasonably well for portraits too (haven't tried it), so it's not JUST a Macro lens. The biggest complaint i've seen is that the AF on the Macro lens isn't the fastest out there.

Personally I'm holding out for the t1000

I'll be back.