Ask a monkey how to fly to the moon and he'll jump up and down flailing about! There are FEW circumstances where one could even begin to compare the Mamiya 7ii to a Canon 5D. The Canon is great for weddings, general photography, it excels at indoor shots where light is evenly controlled however landscapes... NO! Amateurs will tell you it dominates landscapes. It does not! I've owned the 5DII with a 24mm TSE II lens and 50mm 1.4 lens. I've also owned a Hasselblad H2 with both film and P30 digital back and a Fuji GSW690III. I'm now buying the Fuji GX617 for pano work in California.
If you are going to shoot weddings, portraits, models, runway, sports photography, photo journalism... buy a Canon or a Nikon. If you need to shoot commercially for cars, modeling shoots that pay well, architecture, etc then get MF or bigger, preferably digital or digital back 30MP+. If you want to shoot landscapes to show off to your Facebook friends... buy anything! If you want to sell your prints (I'm talking 30x50 or 40x60 or larger... 16x20 is not a print people, that's a proof!), if you want to sell gallery work you better either have a high-end digital camera like the Pentax 645D, Hasselblad H series, Mamiya 645D or any number of Fuji, Mamiya or Hassy film cameras that can shoot 6x7 or larger sized positives or negatives; or go big like a Walker Titan 4x5 or 5x7 with a Schneider lens (Mike Walker makes great field cameras).
For the guy that thinks Velvia is the worst... tell that to Peter Lik! He's only made a little over $60,000,000 selling prints from Velvia film, yeah that's Million with a capital M. If Velvia sucks then the people forking over thousands for those prints can't tell the difference when standing in a gallery.
I sold my 5DII for several reasons. 1) I don't do weddings, sporting events, portraits, runway or photo journalism. 2) Compared to my H2 with a Phase One digital back the Canon was lighter. That was the ONLY advantage it had over my Hasselblad. THE ONLY ADVANTAGE. And 3) the MF film I've shot on Velvia 50 and 100 and Kodak E100 BLOWS THE DOORS OFF MY CANON! Like comparing a Yugo to a Saturn 5 rocket!
Digital has come a long way but I find it hypocritical that people put down film with so many famous pictures in the Library of Congress, the White House, most Casinos, high-end hotels, palaces, etc were all shot on film! Ansel Adams, Elliot Porter, Julius Shulman, Peter Lik... these are people that have had their work reviewed and praised at the highest levels and all shot on MF or LF film. Sure Lik is going digital but go to one of his galleries and ask them where their biggest sales come from... It's film... panoramic... and shot mostly using Velvia and a Linhof 617 camera! His other digital works shot using a Mamiya 645D sell but not as well as his film work.
The thing I find so funny is when people try to compare 6x7 to 617 or 35mm to 4x5. 4x5 film, drum scanned at 3000 DPI is the equivalent of a 200 Megapixel image! Let's see Nikon's 800E produce something with that level of detail... hmmm? NO! Not yet and not at the price that camera sells for.
Sure scans are expensive, because if you have a quality composition and know how to work the equipment, scans are worth it! A $100 scan can make you thousands $$$$ if it's worthy composition and rendered correctly. So... decide what it is you want the equipment for but please, don't compare apples to a fruit cake!