You could go with a 139 Quartz and add a winder when you want it. The 139 has autoexposure and manual shutter speed selection.
Another option is the 137MD, which is autoexposure only with just two manually selected shutter speeds - B and flash sync. I don't think the built-in film advance is too loud with this model.
I have the 159mm.
It's manual advance (winder available) and quite small.
I've never had a Yashica and was tempted to get one as a backup body until I read so much about the sub par mechanics and just got another 159mm.
The 159 lacks mirror lockup but gives you 1/250 flash sync and aperture priority if needed.
brucemuir, I never found the Yashicas to have subpar mechanics. I used an FX-3 and FX-D Quartz for several years and had excellent reliability. The FX-3 has crappy body covering, but that's easily solved by buying one of the cool camera leathers that are available for it.
The Contaxes are generally nicer, but nothing wrong with the Yashicas, especially if you buy the 1980s ones.
The contax coverings are nothing to write home about either Jim.
I just saw a thread where maybe it was the 2000 (forget the exact model designation) where a couple people were complaining about gearing and other plastic parts.
Like I said I never owned one and haven't been inside one to compare so take the internet advice with a grain.
I got lucky and got a 159 with discolored covering for 35.00 usd so went that direction.
I know the contaxs dont have the best rep in the electrics dept.
It's possible the FX-3 Super 2000 was less well made. Mine was the non-Super 2000 that maxed out at 1/1000 and it was certainly reliable.
The Yashica FRI is the best Yashica body I think. I have had one for nearly 20 years, used intermittently, that is quite worn. Still going strong.
Aria is smaller than the RX and the RX is more robust. I like my 2.8/28 mm and especially the 1.4/85 mm. The 85 is quite large and the 2.8/85 and the 2.8/135 are cheaper alternatives. Especially the 135 is exzellent! These Zeiss Contax lenses are not more expansive than Nikon or Canon of comparable quality! Leica is more expensive! I am using Contax bodies 167MT, S2 and AX since over 20 years and i will continue to do so, hopefully for another 20 years.
I've had 167mt's, an RX, and now an RTS III (which I bought because I got the body for a steal, and I had always wanted one when they were still making them but could never afford one). While the rubber covering on the used 167 I bought was starting to bubble a little where the hand grip went, I never had a mechanical or electronic problem with either one of the 167s or the RX. It's too soon to tell with the RTS III as I haven't had it that long (less than a year now). I've also had a G1 and a G2 for close to a decade, with no incidents or problems. I'm not a light user nor am I a heavy user of any of these systems (they get trotted out a few times a year, but when they do they're getting 30+ rolls put through them in a week, most specifically on the G1/G2 kit). The SLRs have been to Belize, Thailand and Cambodia (nothing like a tropical climate to stress a camera) without failure. I would opt for the RX if you are looking for an SLR body - I think it's the best compromise between function and weight, plus it has that nifty little feature of the focus indicator in the viewfinder. It's a manual focus camera that will indicate not only if you are in focus (it uses a center spot of the viewfinder for measuring) but it will also indicate if you are focused closer or farther, and can optionally show you the depth of focus of your chosen aperture, so you can play with hyperfocal focusing or front-focusing (useful if you have to use a very small aperture due to bright light outdoors, but want to blur the background) without taking your eyes off the viewfinder.
As for the portrait lenses, I think you should do some research on each lens and see if the rendering each offers is what you are after. The 100/2 is a very nice lens, as is the 135/2 which is also worth considereing. I've had the 85/1.4 and 135/2 but only kept the 135/2.
I wonder if ultimately you might be better off with a medium format body such as an M645 which is potentially lighter than your Bronica but which will give you a better result than any 35mm film camera, IMHO. The M645 lenses are very cheap too. The 120/4 A Macro is an ideal portrait lens, as is the 110/2.8 N and these are both at the expensive end of the Mamiya M645 range. The wider lenses are not very expensive and the 80/2.8 N is a really nice lens yet extremely cheap. I get that you're trying to get away from weight but I don't think there is anything you can do to replicate medium format image quality with a 35mm camera, even with Leica or Zeiss lenses.