FWIW, if you're going to scan your film, then I see little point to 35mm. It is very hard to get a really good scan of 35mm film unless you manage to obtain a very expensive dedicated film scanner that is unlikely to have drivers compatible with current operating systems. I am completely serious about this. Ignore the specs on all the film scanners currently available at reasonable prices. There is a big, big difference between creating a file that has 8, 10, 12, 14, etc. megapixels, and creating a file that has 8, 10, 12, 14, etc. megapixels worth of actual detail and information. Most scanners will just produce big, blurry, useless files.
In contrast, there are many cheap, current flatbed scanners that do a reasonably good job of scanning medium format film. And medium format makes it easy to look at the negatives and know whether a picture is worth scanning or not. And a scan of a medium format negative (or positive, if shooting slide film) is still reasonably competitive with digital -- 35mm is not and, in my opinion, hasn't been competitive with digital for several years now.
I have owned a number of medium format cameras, all with their own quirks, strengths and weaknesses. But my favorite is the humble YashicaMat 124G. It is very light and compact, has good, intuitive controls, a good, bright focus screen and a useful magnifier, and a match-needle meter that is surprisingly effective. Moreover, being a TLR, it allows you to take pictures that are usefully different from most digital cameras used at eye or shoulder level (although cameras with a tiltable rear LCD screen are starting to negate that last bit). And stopped down a stop or two, the lens is very, very sharp. I like YashicaMats better than some of the bigger names in TLRs. I was enticed by the brand and the lore of some more expensive cameras, but ultimately came back to the YashicaMat: since it is faster top operate, lighter and more convenient to carry around with you, it actually resulted in better pictures.
