A film camera is a film camera; it wont make much odds really what film you chuck in it. End of the day, 'The Camera' is little more than a light tight box to hold the film, while it's exposed. The make ad model and construction of that box has very little influence on anything.....
To offer extremes, if you pick up a plastic 'toy' 35mm camera, the film transport mechanism is probably rather crude. It likely has no pressure plate to hold the film against the 'trap' when you press the shutter, just plastic ribs on the door, to hold it roughly in the right place, and a good chance that they are curved to compensate for a rather dire wobbly plastic lens. But it'll take photo's! Only slightly further up the grades, most 35mm cameras will have a more accurately made film trap and a proper sprig loaded back-plate to hold film against the trap accurately, lenses are likely much more accurately made, and likely interchangeable; the camera body a lot more rigid to hold everything in place more accurately, but beyond that, as far as the camera goes, the only real differences are likely to be in the transport mechanism, and whether winding the film on or back in the can is likely to scratch it, or if the body has light leaks that will let light in to fog the film etc.
Practically, the actual camera shouldn't make very much odds what so ever... the film will, and the lens will, the camera not so much.
In years past, there were many who would buy incredibly cheap, usually East-German or Russian made cameras like the Practika or Zenit, and then fit very expensive Pentax or Ziess lenses to them, and explain that the camera was just light tight box for film, so they put their money to the lens, and skimped on the camera to buy better film.
AS to the film.... a lot of what I shot twenty-thirty years ago was on ultra-cheap 'petrol-station' or bulk-loaded stock, an awful lot very low rent Croatian Konica copy emulsion, and Konica film was often not that wonderful to start with! Looking back at the archive, if anything, I probably rue not buying better film the most.... B-U-T.. looking at it? On a student budget, I probably wouldn't have ANY photo's if I had been too precocious about the film, and more, using 'cheap' film like that, I did a lot of home processing, to help keep costs in check, and more, was encouraged to have a go at stuff like push/pull processing, shooting & developing it an ASA rating other than 'box'.... particularly push processing relatively 'slow' film to high ASA ratings, looking for the high-grain, high-contrast effects associated with 1960's reportage and particularly 'rock' shots, when shooting gigs at the SU bar! Again, on review quarter century later they are far from wonderful, and the high-grain + contrast effect isn't even that pronounced... but hey, I got piccies!
Others in the era would, far more often than I, 'pull' process, rating common ASA film much lower, say shooting 100ASA stock at perhaps 25 or 50ASA to get a much finer grain and wider tonal rage from it, and possibly even using an expensive fine-gran developer in the 'mix' to get the most from it.. and some more affluent folk, would continue to do that sort of thing, even with more expensive 'better' film stock, chasing 'ultimate' image quality.... And THEN you have the myriad permutations of paper, chemicals and processing you an do under the enlarger to make an actual print!!!!!! And even more obsessing over the 'best' brews and materials!
Which is all to sort of point out that in the overall equation, the film choice alone is but a tiny part, the camera you put it in almost inconsequential, and, if you are merely shooting over-the-counter film, and paying for over-the-counter Develop & Print, yo are abdicating your possible influence over final mage quality to literally no more than your choice of film and camera, and expecting the difference to be made, (as is so often the common contemporary culture,!) Merely down to your consumer choices, and rather missing the bigger picture....
And if you are merely going to scan to digital?!?!?!?!?!?
In answer to the question, basically its the wrong one!
The kit matters very little. How you use it, and what you are hoping to achieve, is key, and THEN having the kit, and knowing how to use it to achieve your ends, almost entirely 'all'.
Look at photo's created by the 'old-masters' from the 1930's or before. Many of them did't even have the option of picking a film over-the counter, they had to make up emulsion in the dark-room and smear it on glass plates! The choice of commercial emulsions, when it was available, was pretty limited, and, to get the results they wanted, they looked at the WHOLE process, from subject to print; and to get the results they hoped, would start NOT with the camera, or the film, but with the subject, setting the scene properly, lighting it how they wanted with artificial lights,, or waiting for the 'best' natural light they could get to get what they hoped. Then into the dark-room to develop and print, and yet more choices and dexterity and know-how applied to create the finished result they hoped for from what they had got.. in which the film choice ad messing with the actual camera were only a very tiny fraction of the whole deal...
And back to those results! Look at some of the incredible studio shots from 1930's Hollywood! Or the stunning landscapes that have come out of Russia taken pre-WWI and their communist revolution... all taken with incredibly crude cameras, and very very crude 'film' a lot of either actually home made! All achieved with know-how not the cheque-book! I theory... with that sort of know-how, and the patience to apply to, you aught be able to achieve similarly stunning results, without even buying a camera! Let alone film!
As to what contemporary 35mm film to buy, if you want 'better' results than you get from e-bay offerings or the more available consumer stock.... answer is Richard-Prior, 'Vote None of the Above'! 35mm was inordinately compromised from the start to use relatively 'cheap' and 'available' movie stock, and an awful lot of the technology chucked at 35mm film cameras used pretty much 'only' to limit the short-comings of the small-format... f 'better' s really that important after know-how to get the most from it, the answer is probably simpy NOT 35mm... go 120 roll-film Medium format or cut sheet Large-Format......
BUT, you are still going to be in a situation where its a question of applying know-how, not buying from menu it get the best out of anything, and using know-how to match what you buy to what you hope to achieve....
Which is where the 'experience' comes in, and you have to shoot a lot of film or a lot of different brands and types, and take control of developing it, with the myriad permutations on that, before you get to scanning or printing, and the possible permutations that may have!
So the start point IS "What do you hope to achieve?" and the entirety, well beyond merely the over-the-coutner choice of film and camera.
And big hint.... a lot of that is compromise. I DON'T shoot 120 roll film very often if at all, let alone Cut-Sheet Large-Format. 35mm is 'good-enough',especially as most often I am going to waste most of what that may offer scanning to digital, and the influence on end result less than best scanning will have. Review of those old cheap-film shots from my college days, more of what I dd take on MF, and applying experience, for ME, the preference is I will pretty much shoot ANY old 'crud'... and I still have half a retail pack of out of date Kodak in the fridge, that has a curious green cast in most cases straight out of camera! But I can correct that in post! How 'good' do I really need or want the results? And Where would I most get that?
It probably isn't most easily and certainly cheaply found in the film, and if there is ANYTHING to be found in the film, it almost certainly wont be found in any great quantity in ANY colour-Print film, that has a heavy smoke-magenta mask in the transparency base, to counter blue-hue in printing, screwing up the possible contrast... so slide film or B&W then... and how much am I prepared to pay for that, and processing; how far am I prepared to go with more considered processing, and printing or scanning, and just how much time and money am I prepared to invest in to get that extra 'quality'... when in all likelihood.... BIGGEST let down to ANY photo I am likely to take, will be outside the camera, and picking poor light or a bad subject!!!
Ultimately, you cannot BUY better quality photo's, you have to MAKE them.... and lessons of the pioneers and old masters is that you can achieve far more 'quality' with the most rudimentary, even home made equipment and materials, know-how & experience, than you ever will with the cheque book. So how good do you want the results to be, and in the compromise, of time, money, effort ad experience, where are you going to get the most 'out' for what you put 'in'?