Hi I'm really interested in getting into LF, partly for the quality, and partly for the control. It seems that most people advise that 4x5 is the most obvious choice for people who're moving from smaller formats. However I'm currently using medium format, 6x6 to be specific, and (taking the dimensions of square medium format in inches to be 2 1/4", by 2 1/4") that makes 4x5 only 78% taller, and 122% wider. It doesn't really seem like a significantly big increase in resolution between the two formats. In area the difference is roughly a factor of four, but this comes at a significant weight and size disadvantage.

Is it better to move straight to 8x10? I've heard that the quality of 8x10 contact prints is second to none, and this is the sort of size I was thinking of typically printing to, and 8x10 cameras aren't that much larger than 4x5 camera. I know even 110 could be blown up to that sort of size without much issue, but obviously this is that cost of quality, control (and depth of field).

So far I have short list of pros and cons (well, really just pros) for the two formats. I'd greatly appreciate the input, or opinion of anyone who has made similar decisions, or is experienced with LF, thank you all greatly.

8x10
+quality
+depth of field (in my case, whilst a high degree of control is useful, a shallower dof is preferable to deeper one.)
+size of contact print
+ability to scan with cheaper scanner
+maximum printing size

4x5
+price of camera
+price of film
+price of lenses
+variety of lenses
+portability

N.B. This is my first post on here, I hope I have followed the correct format, and guidelines. If not I'd greatly appreciate your constructive criticisms.
P.S The sort of photography I'd be using it for is mostly landscapes, and outdoor still life. Although I was thinking of getting into a little portraiture too.