Of course, a TLR or a folder will give you a different look from 35mm. Or else their presence makes no sense :-D
What I'm saying is simple.
A Rolleiflex 2.8F will give you great photos. You will get pretty much exactly the same looking photos with a Hasselblad 500C + 80/2.8 Planar. The latter will, btw, cost about half the price to buy.
However, with the 500C, one can also get the C 50/4 for superb wide angle photography. Or get the C 150/4 for beautiful portraiture. 120/4 Makro-Planar is one of the best macro lenses you can get.
So, if you already know that what you want to do with a medium format is to shoot with a normal lens末equivalent to a 50mm lens on FF or 31mm on APS-C, then a folder or TLR would be perfect. Of course, unless you can pony up for a top of the line folder/tlr with a 80/2.8 lens, you will lose out on DoF, because most budget MF TLR/folders have f3.5 or slower lens.
But if you want to do anything else末wideangle, telephoto, macro, super shallow dof, etc., TLR/Folders just don't cut it. And the killer is, a TLR or a folder is *NOT* an optimal camera to have in order to decide what you want to do with MF, because you either shoot with the built-in lens or you don't shoot at all! Worst case scenario, one might decide that medium format really isn't worth all the hassle because the cheapo folder really doesn't generate images that have an extra oomph over 35mm (or an APS-C DSLR for that matter).
With an SLR MF末whether it's a 645, 6x6, 6x7, whatever末you can always start with a standard lens, and then if that's not quite what you want, or if you want something extra, you can always exchange the lens (or add onto it) a wideangle or a telephoto. Perhaps after trying a few things, you'll settle down to a few lenses.
For my Hasselblad, I've owned the 40/4, 50/4, 60/3.5, 80/2.8, 100/3.5, and 150/4. After shooting with all of them, now I just have the 80/2.8 and 150/4 (and an SWC/M :-). Those are the only three focal lengths I need, I've figured out.
For my Pentax 67, I've had the 45/4, 75/4.5, 105/2.4, 135/4, 165/2.8, and 300/4. Now I just have the 45, 105, and 300.
These are decisions I could make because I have these modular systems. And because I know what these do for me, I now know exactly when it's optimal for me to take my Rolleiflex 3.5E instead of the Hassie or the 67II.
That's what I mean by a "full MF experience". If you can't experience the entire range of things you can do with MF, you really can't judge MF photography.
The good thing about all of these options, however, is that if you take care of them, they don't devalue. For example, if one has the money upfront, you could decide to buy the full range of lenses for a particular system, try it all, and sell off what you don't need, without losing any money in the process. Indeed, I've been very diligent about buying cheap and selling at market prices, so that whenever I sell off something, I'm actually making money in the process (which goes towards my next purchase) :-)))
Anyway, that's my 2c.
