35mm :
if you WANT grain, it is easier to get . . .but since you're scanning anyway, photoshop that grain in there
scanners for 35mm are cheaper (about 1/3 to 1/2 price of MF scanners)
glass for 35mm cameras tends to be higher resolving, but with the smaller neg, you still get better clarity and tonality from MF, even with a Kiev 6x6 vs. a Leica 35mm SUmmicron.
35mm is easier to keep flat in the camera. . . .but that's not a strong argument.
MF :
better image quality in terms of tonality, sharpness, resolution, color density, etc.
Easier to crop and to work with since the neg is larger
processing cost is higher for MF, but that cost is negligible when balanced with the image quality increase
Sometimes there are images that you're glad you have on 645 instead of a little 35mm. I have landscapes that if I'd taken them on 35mm, it would be tragic.
Using the Bronica, you'll slow down and tend to smell the roses more. You won't shoot through rolls of film because you won't have AF and motor drive. You WILL have Aperture priority, metering, and a fantastic electronic leaf shutter and you will have the most accurate metering I've ever seen in a camera. You will have a great deal more flexability with composition and printing, and the interchangeable lenses are a good thing.
With the Hexar, you'll have faster glass, but that balances against having a smaller negative, so the overall gain is negated. Use faster film in the Bronica and you'll still have sharper images. . . . .and manual focus is always better than AF. AF is difficult if not impossible to get perfect on organic forms. SHooting portraits with the hexar would be difficult wide open. Shooting with the Bronica, as Doug's gallery will show, will allow you totally perfect focus every time.
