I won't get anyone in a colour vs. film debate but the bottom line is that I can't afford the initial outlay on a digital medium format setup and I'm more than happy with the 'look' of medium format film. So I'm thinking of getting a bronica or hasselblad 500 in the next few years and scanning the negatives to work on and print in a manner that I'm used to/comfortable with (I'm too young to remember the film only days...).
My question - is there any benefit to scanning black and white film over scanning colour film of the same ISO and doing a colour to b&w workflow on the computer? As far as I know the benefit to compromise relationship is as follows:
1) scan only colour: carry around fewer options of film and let silver efex pro provide much more control over tonality (once scanned) than a single coloured filter in front of the lens ever could.
2) scan b&w film: the film has a finer grain at respective ISOs than colour because the light sensitive chemicals only respond to light levels and are not separated into colours (this is a complete guess - please correct me). Also certain b&w films have a objectively/subjectively unique and 'better' look when scanned and printed than step '1)'.
Is that characterisation accurate? What should I be aware of?
Thank you in advance,
p.s. I am thinking of having a two camera setup for the forceable future - one that is convenient and of high quality (with respect to the enthusiast rather than jobbing pro) - a nex 7 and primes for travel and everyday photography (light, portable and high quality) and a medium format film camera for more considered and planned work, from portraits to landscapes (I tend to think of Michael's iq80 as high def audio playing through a Linn sound system [perfection] and medium format film as flawed but beautiful vinyl).