Well I agree with most of what you say..but thought the OP wanted to use his existing lenses on a film camera
I think that was the intent at the beginning, but then the vignetting issue of using DX optimized lenses on an FX format film camera was pointed out.
I do note that from his profile he claims a Helios 50, though, that would screw onto an old Zenit a charm... mind, an old Zenit with a Helios 50, likely missed in the listings by the MFT adapter crew is probably cheaper than the lens on its own!
As far as the legendary Nikon F-Mount comparability goes though! AHRGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It all started to go awry when they started using the pin-slot AI coupling, I think! And its got even more complicated since! The presumed compatibility isn't guaranteed, and the myriad permutations of possibilities with pin-drive auto-focus lenses and internal-motor auto-focus lenses, and electric iris lenses, it starts to get complicated even before you start adding in third-party lenses, let alone the DX/FX issue, as to what will work with what, even if they will physically bolt together on a common camera/lens flange!
Keep-It-Simple-Silly... for dabble in film, don't add to the compromises and try and squeeze a quart out of a pint pot, looking for any sort of system over-lap. The gear is cheap enough that you don't have to, and you probably don't win anything from the attempt.
Beyond that? Most 35mm SLRs came as stock with a 50 on the front. So many never even bothered to buy accessory lenses for them, and those that did, so often never had more than a 35mm wide angle, that was probably most used, and gave the same framing as a point and shoot compact, or they bought a short zoom, typically 35-70'ish' which was all to frequently only ever used at one or other end, usually the wide side!
Given so many having a dabble with film, so often start with, and then stick with, the OE fit 50, to my mind, alternative lens availability and compatibility really shouldn't be such a big deal, let alone a deal maker or breaker....
A-N-D follow on is then, that a fixed lens is no real hand-cap.. so why limit yourself to system SLR's, then why to 35mm? 120 medium format, could offer so much more of the presumed 'filminess' desired, and again, stepping away from the more coveted interchangeable lens system cameras, you could get so much 'more' for your money.
Eg: that Ziess Ikonta folder; Worth about £25, it is about as expensive, in fact probably cheaper, than an old Olympus OM10 and 50,or a Zenit and Helios! Actually more pocketable, I find, than a 35mm SLR when folded, and once you have sussed the intricacies of manual setting and not having through the lens composition, the lack of things to fiddle with actually often make it LESS of a chore to use! Yet, fantastic lens, uncompromised by a mirror housing, with that huge negative size... 6x9cm on mine! True, you don't get too many shots per roll, b-u-t.. what you do get can be great! And with the bellows extended it really does give that full 'antique' camera experience into the deal. 10.5cm 'normal angle' lens, makes you work a bit harder for your framing, but what the heck.... when you have a negative THAT size you can afford to crop a heck of a lot, before you get down to the same framing/negative area as a 105mm telephoto on 35mm.. and STILL probably have that superior IQ, from the 'pure' lens construction! Shame you cant go the other way for wide-angle shots, but, what the heck! Its a lot of filminess for the money, and it's almost certainly cheaper than a 'cheap' Helios 50, let alone trying to hunt out a 'cheap' M42 mount, wide angle! But, if you want to pursue such things, its a doorway to the whole game, for very very little money.
Another one that springs to mind is the Minox 35. Astounding little 35mm camera; in it's day, I recall more expensive than an awful lot of 35mm SLR's. I think my old-man paid around £400 for his back in the very early 90's, when that would have bought a brand new Cannon EOS outfit with a couple of lenses. Now? Just because it's not an SLR and doesn't take interchangeable lenses, and more because it isn't one of the more renowned names, you can pick these up for maybe £25-£30 and have a pick for the price of a Zenit & Helios!!! Absolutely incredible! But shows the disparity. The Zenit (and I own one!) was a 'cheap' camera. I think they sold, in the 80's, brand new in Curry's for around £30, usually in a kit with a tripod, flight case and B&W filter collection! At that time the Minox was over 10x the price for a bit or 'precision' German engineering, a dedicated enthusiasts camera completely at the opposite end of the spectrum as far as 'grade' to the Zenit or a Practka.. yet now, just because it's not an SLR and wont take interchangeable lenses, you can buy one for as little money... I probably wouldn't as I already have a cracking little Konika C35, worth probably a fiver!!! that's almost as much camera, and a bunch of XA2's, which aren't and are much more P&S automated.
But it shows the premium put on interchangeable lens SLR's that they probably just don't deserve., and probably isn't necessary, even before you try stretching the compromise even further trying to get 'cross-over' with modern AF lenses intended for wdgetal!
As a toe in the water exercise in film, I think it has to be a great way to go, and see if you do experience the 'difference' you hope to find, with all the difference there to be discovered, and for such a small pocket-money outlay to find out. 'Just' for the sale of ignorng SLR reverance and looking for some sort of cross-over compatibility, that's probably not even there, as the DX vs FX issue has already shown.
