You're coming across as a bit of a luddite. I hate to say it (because I'm about to sell my 5D Mark III and go back to APS-C), but FF digital is much better than you're giving it credit for being; I'd put it on par with 6x7 film easily. Yes, there's less resolution, but it's so much cleaner that even at low ISOs you can print arguably larger with FF digital than with 6x7 film and there's more microcontrast than with 135 for sure.
Both FF digital (with the best lenses) and 6x7 film have a "punchiness" that lesser formats (135 film and APS-C digital) lack. Not so much for landscapes, which are approaching diffraction limited on most any system, and for which 4x5 is the superior format no question, but for portraiture you can use shallow focus lenses with good resolution and excellent microcontrast and the medium itself has enough acutance not to get fuzzy. The "awesome" look of f2.8 normals wide open shot with a Mamiya or Hasselblad is awfully easy to recreate with FF and a 50mm or 85mm f1.2 lens or even one of the cheap alternatives.
6x7 film has been totally supplanted by FF digital. I've shot both; I've seen prints of both... and neither is a landscape format, anyway.
As regards 4x5, you need a drum scan to really make the difference. And that's what? $100 per shot to scan. If you bracket, it's about $20 per shot to shoot. But I do think 4x5 is the best format for landscape, no comparison. It's also a little trickier to shoot for sure, at least for me... I find it quite slow by comparison.
So for fashion and product photography go 5D or 6D. For sports or nature go 1DX. For landscape I do agree 4x5 is awesome! But my Hasselblad love is purely nostalgic now.