It is the same old story. You can scan MF on a flatbed - the results will be about the same as scanning photos from your Minolta on a dedicated film scanner, and the hassle of MF is immensely bigger than shooting 35mm. I doubt there are any good and reasonably priced labs in the whole of Eastern Europe - they are either totally crap or professional and more expensive than in the west. I would also advise against buying any digital camera second hand - these cameras are worth as much as their warranty, when it is over, you risk that the cost of a major repair will be almost as big as buying a new body. BTW no matter which Minolta you have it is nothing nearly as durable and beautiful as a Leica M. If you lenses are compatible with the Sony cameras, you could buy yourself one of the Sony Alphas.
I like the M2 as a gift too, but different from the Rollei/medium format.
First and foremost, the big change from what he is using now is the waist-level finder - different perspective leads to different photos. I think this is even seen in your photos above - the two MF shots look to be done from roughly waist level, the 35mm/digital from eye level (both for a roughly average height person). While the photographer can compensate, in my experience, most don't (or at least not without thinking about it). Personally I also notice a big difference in the reaction of subjects between a camera held to the eye (which they feel is 'aimed' at them) compared to a waist level, which subjects either ignore or react out of mild, bemused interest.
This change in perspective is a useful thing for a photographer. At any rate, nice complement to 35mm.
Biggest difference quality wise is tonality and grain visible. Arguable, but I don't think you necessarily need a fantastic scanner for this. (And you can always get an optical print which will show the difference). I can see difference in the amount of grain in your photos above (in the B&W anyway). Tonality will depend and probably not visible in web photo but I frequently notice the difference, especially in larger prints. At 400 iso, B&W 120 (especially C41 process) shows really modest grain at good-sized enlargements; in contrast, I find grain gets intrusive on 35mm fairly quickly - but this is a personal taste/type of photography thing.
As for processing, I find the C41-process black and white films are relatively easily processed in commercial shops with decent quality. Traditional B&W really depends a lot on a zillion variables, right down to the person doing the processing and his mood that day, so you really need a good shop (and very hard to find) unless you're doing it yourself.
I'm in Eastern Europe and find it easier to get 120 film processed than in North America. Depends on city though and I don't know about Macedonia.
At any rate, the 'gift to yourself' depends much more on the person; I don't think he can go wrong if what he wants to try is a Rollei. Worst case, ends up selling it later for not much loss.
