I Bought an east german Makarov for my first carry gun and fell in love with the (then) inexpensive 9x18 round (it was like 1000 rounds for $125 or something outrageous). I tried them all, but always went back to the Makarov. The original was just better made, more accurate, easier to work on, and had the best trigger of the lot. The cz82 is a close second and possibly a slightly better carry choice depending on your wants (mak is smaller, 82 holds more). The 64 has no real redeeming qualities .. its as reliable, but its trigger is worse, its more cheaply made (though still very well made, this is a testament to the quality of the others not a slam on the 64), and basically in every category falls flat compared to the Makarov unless it might weigh slightly less (I think it does).
The bersa is a cheaply made new gun that I like, but if I had a choice I would buy the Makarov over it all day.
I sold the 82 and the 64. I spent the money on target grips for my Makarov.
Size wise, I dunno. The web says 64 is 6.3 X 4.6 vs Makarov of 6.4 and 4.5 ... its virtually the same size. The 64 seems like it is slightly smaller but its not much at all.
My mak fit in my pocket, but it was tight, and it was a single stack of course. Its slick, nothing to snag, at least so it came out clean. My 938 is smaller, easier to control, and shoots a more potent 9mm round with a far better trigger. Or the 238 if you accept that 9x18 and 380 are effectively the same thing in the grand scheme of things. Modern pistols have a ton more to offer than these antiques... lighter weight, 9mm options, better triggers, night sights, beavertails, better grips/ ergos, smaller frames, ... the list goes on forever. These antiques are a good pick if you find one very cheap and have a very limited budget. That's about the single most compelling argument for them.