To my mind, crop is the way to go for shooting wildlife through good glass, but for landscape I would go ff
My observations are that the ultimate sharpness of your pictures is a combination of three things, sensor, lens, and calibration. In moderate conditions, both using a top quality lens, I see very little difference between crop and ff, but as the light dims (sunsets) or where there are dark areas of the picture, ff seems a bit better. When the light gets real bad, ff seems noticeably better. If you are not using really good glass, even in good light, crop just doesn't seem as nice. Of course, this is all about pixel peeping, depending on how much you zoom in on the image you will notice differences more...
The third factor is AFMA. Until you have had experience with it, it is hard to appreciate the importance of it. This is the calibration of your equipment... A camera, crop or ff, will take better focused pictures when the lenses and body are calibrated, unless you are insanely lucky and everything you own came perfectly set for each other and that is a very rare occurance. Lenses and cameras are manufactured to tolerances... Not to perfection. Your lens and your body have to be calibrated together to bring out their maximum potential. Personally, I would rate calibration of your gear as far more important than the crop/ff debate... But note that the only canon crop body to offer AFMA is the 7D, while all the ff offer it. Calibrated gear is professional, uncalibrated is just someone goofing around.
So to summarize, I would say in good light it's AFMA, lens, sensor and in poor light AFMA, sensor, lens.