Approximate is a dirty word in the technical world.
Funny how *many folks I come across who, like myself, have worked in highly technical professions and now spend their post-work lives doing what they can to shed technical centrism. It can be hard: when I pick up an AF camera I become an instant stickler for accurate focus. In fact I finally gave up on D-SLRs mainly due to focusing issues. But put a rangefinder in my hands and the fixation goes away. I still like to get the focus right but it's no longer an overriding concern when I'm doing pic-taking.
I don't care so much about accurate focus, as long I can get what I want. Maybe a 30% of my MILC use is done via manual focus. And when I use AF, I quickly move the AF point to frame position that my main subject is placed in my composition, before I even raise camera on my eye.
One of the reasons why I am not fixated about focus, is that I have done my own printing tests and I think fairly often before I even grab a camera, that where the image will come, how it will be viewed. That takes like a 100ms time in mind and then all camera settings are adjusted to match that target.
It is actually opposite on me that when I use a rangefinder, I am more fixated to the focusing as the whole camera operation is mainly about focusing instead just composition. And you can't do the same manual focusing so easily but compose-recompose-focus-recompose path is required.
That was one reason why a reflex cameras got me so well hooked as I could just look how the focus moved. Didn't need to point camera anywhere else and in challenging situations it was fast just to quickly scan the range and you got it about there. And that is even today the method that I use with focus-by-wire lenses as they allow so easily and quickly get the manual focus accurate without thinking it.
The fairly common sharpness chase is something I don't follow so much, like if something is 5-10% sharper than another, it doesn't matter as my print anyways likely will be by size and content the factor that eliminates such differences that pixel peepers will find on computer screens.
It must be to do something that once you started with a 135 B/W ASA 400 film, then worked with a 120 film and enjoyed about the increase of details, then be amazed by using a 4x5 or 8x10, and then back to 135 where you managed to get things nicely as wanted. It must be so that when digital cameras allows to capture so much more than 135 or 120 and so much easier way, the fixation for "best possible IQ" is gone when it ain't anymore just the technical perfectionism.
So spending time to even blur photographs, add grain, lower the dynamic range etc to get the photographs look good, is just something that makes photography fun when you focus to the content.
And that I think that Leica magic is all about, to simplify the operation so much that you must think the content more than with a fancy all-in-with-kitchen-sink body and the limitations in Leica becomes then its strong point.