Whatever the image path was results in the image - and that's all a result of decision or necessity on the part of the photographer. Lots of great photos have been taken using junk cameras, second-rate film, and questionable developing technique. Just like more lousy photos than anyone could possibly count have been taken with excellent equipment, materials, and technique. Photography depends on what you do, but it doesn't exist without what you see.
- focusing accuracy (depends on rangefinder adjustment)
- pressure plate
- lighting (except for studio lights)
- feel of the camera in the hand (some weigh more and some less)
- vibration
But then its hard to see these effects, if you stop down and allow to have a large dof.
There may be differences like exposure. Even if the cameras are set the same the shutters don't give the same timing and it varies between samples not really models. Also rangefinder accuracy one may be more accurate than the others.
Lenses may be equally sharp but still differ in what kind of look and "character" they add to a picture. Compare a Sonnar-Type 1.4/50 to a Planar/Double-Gauss one and to a recent Aspherical lens. Or an old 2/50 Summicron collapsible to Zeiss Planar 2/50 ZM. All are as sharp as one can aks for at least stopped down a bit but still the pictures look strikingly different and even the pricepoint is more or less the same used. It is like comparing wine from the same grape and year but different wineries: They all taste different and not everyone prefers the same or they go perfectly with one dish but not another.