Dale Cotton has answered very well I think, so I just have a general comment, inspired by a Mike Johnson essay about the fallacies of "connoisseurism".
Quality is perhaps best thought of in terms of how close we are to visible perfection, maybe scored as a percentage (like SQF scores for lenses). As quality improves all around, the quality gap between a "lower quality, cheaper, more convenient" option and "higher quality, more expensive, less convenient" alternative shrinks. For example, maybe some decades ago, the best zooms scored only 70% for quality while good primes scored 90%, and many people could see and care about that 20% difference. But if today's best zooms score 95%, then even great efforts can only make primes better by less than 5%.
At the opposite extreme to this "percentage" idea, one of the greatest obfuscations and exaggerations of image quality differences is using sensor pixel counts as a measure of quality. I see no real sense to suggesting that the 1DSMkII gives 50% better prints than the original 1Ds simply due to having about 50% more pixels.