Don't get me wrong, the scanner
is good, but it's not a replacement for a film scanner
Ya get what ya pay for
Hmm, the quality is decent.
This is what I got from Walgreen's...I've tried other shops in other countries, but it seems they are all content with about 1.5 MP -- I'm not
I assume that you've seeked out your local, small (and probably struggling) family owned camera store? It pays to become a faithful regular. The store I've used for years started to offer the service and was asking $5/roll for 3MP and $10/roll for 6MP. Three years ago, I walked in with 50 rolls of film and told them that I'd pay $5/roll but only if I got 6MP. They agreed and shortly thereafter they changed their prices for everyone.
However, it's good enough if you want to send some pictures to friends.
With USB, you can plug in the scanner into your next notebook and I think it'll be years until a computer doesn't ship with USB built-in.
True, but I generally don't plan on lugging a flatbed scanner around with a notebook. As such, I can make my plans based on what's likely for the desktop.
If you are struggling to buy a $1,000 digital camera, you should not be using chemical film. The cost of the film, development, scanning, and processing can exceed that amount of money for only a few days of moderate shooting.
Fair enough, but film is simply a different medium, with its own subtlties and reasons to consider it. Guess it would surprise you to learn that I went out and bought an EOS 3 after I bought my 20D.
Do you have a filter set for colour adjustments? You will need it because most chemical film is meant to be used in a specific daylight colour temperature. Filters are required to adjust for the changes in white balance. Unlike with digital files, this white balance cannot be changed properly during development.
I've gone for 25+ years without ever buying said filter.
Unless you're shooting under studio lights without switching to tungsteon film, or you're trying to do indoor natural light photography and don't want the orange tone effect (and again, withouth tungsteon film), there's really no need for a color temperature adjusting filter.
A minimum cost for film development and scanning is $12 per roll, but can be more than $20 with a high-resolution scan. Two rolls of film after scanning can cost more money than a 2 GB memory card. Because you have no requirement to use chemical film, I recommend that you buy a digital camera and use that instead.
All true, but it all depends on what the OP really wants to do. There's still going to be a niche for film even after it has been clearly surpassed by digital technologies, if nothing else than as a craftsmanship art form. Plus in this case, the OP was given this camera. Not only is it hard to beat "free", but this factor might make it a bit of a delicate situation for him to promptly dispose (however politely) of it, lest he be perceived as ungrateful or whatever. The good news is that he's interested in photography and he's going to try to make the best of what he has.
Which camera is it that you have now?
I've already asked the same question. FWIW, if its a EOS-1N RS, I'll offer to buy it, since that's the latter (& better) of only two Canon SLR body designs that were ever made with a fixed Pellicle Mirror.
If you're not familiar with Pellicle Mirrors, they're an interesting design trade-off. Basic advantages are a more silent operation, no viewfinder blackout, reduced shutter lag, zero mirror slap and 10 frames/sec...all for a penalty of 2/3rds of a stop less light transmission. Today, if you want 10fps in a Canon dSLR, you'll have to get the EOS 1D Mark III...which means dropping a quick $4,500.
Suffice to say that 35mm will save you $4000 on the cost of the body...which buys quite a bit of film and developing in the short term.
-hh
