We tend to squish history into a wibbly wobbly ball, and point at pieces.
Up to 40 years ago, You could lump Hasselblad, Leica and Rolex into the same group. Meticulous engineering, exquisite quality and absolute quality control made a big difference. A lot of people who couldn't afford a Leica bought an adapter and a Leica lens. In the days when many lenses had paper strips on their flanges to get them parallel to the film plane, Leicas were always right. The focusing was exact and their settings were accurate, in the days when "fudge factor" was a common term. The cameras were very good, the lenses were better.
Today: Cadillac is just another Chevy. Discounting a red dot, a few letters and a fancy font, is there any actual picture quality differences betwixt that Leica and Panasonic? For some people, owning a Leica is basking in the well being of owning a perceived precision machine of historical quality. For others, it's basking in the perceived impression when watching other people watch them with a Leica.
Sometimes it's like comparing apples, oranges and horsehoes. Sensors are not film. Before, I'd buy a box of 35mm film, shoot it thru a series of cameras, and I could compare like-to-like. Now, am I comparing a 2yr old vs 10yr old tech APS sensors, to a 5yr old FF? I never thought about focus points, megapixels, AA filters, menu options, scene modes, pixel density or raw vs jpg when I took out my '60s and '70s Nikons. Nor did my buddy with his Leica III.
Do you want an excellent Leica film camera? Buy a Leica rangefinder.
Do you want an excellent Leica digital camera? Buy the Panasonic.