One should not lose sight of one fundamental truth in the small format vs medium-large format debate: that the bigger formats (medium and large) present as the finished product a very considerable leap in resolution, flexibility of print size and a better tonal spread over the compressed frame of 35mm. This is one of the reasons why 35mm is dumped so early on by professionals who then move on to medium format (but I actually think they've foresaken some valuable skills by leapfrogging over 35mm) and, for those in specialties, large format. All this is not to say that 35mm cannot WOW a viewer, but a lot is resting on the shoulders of the photographer by way of skill and fitting the subject to the frame, combing visual aesthetics, compositional metrics and precise exposure — not that hard to achieve with solid practice. Medium and large format is more demanding to use working toward the finished product because such cameras lack automation that has been carried for a long time in 35mm — ever seen a Linhof with a motor drive or Program mode? Where 35mm wins outright is in portability, readiness, flexibility, speed and a huge variety of lenses as opposed to mostly primes for MF and just primes for LF and ULF. But despite all the gloss and clammer to handle automation, the best photographs do not need any of it — like the Pentax K1000, of which a friend created beautiful works many years ago that are still on display in his home even though he is no longer amongst us. So one format of camera will not be suitable for all conditions and requirements, all things properly considered. The more formats you have at your disposal, the better you are to tackle a great many more tasks that may not be suitable if your only format is 35mm.