It's a way cheaper than collecting new lenses anyway :) Not sure about F-mounts, but I kept an eye on M42 old lens market. You could (and probably still can now) get a very fast (f/2 and below) lens 5-10x cheaper than their modern counterparts. Yes you loose automatic focus but this is probably no big issue with modern viewfinders.
the modern Nikon sensors are currently the best here, being designed with adaptation in mind. but it doesn't matter so much, the worst you might see is a fractional stop of additional vignetting. it matters even less if you're adapting an SLR lens with a deeper flange.
and it only really matters if you're doing significant enlargement and cropping towards the edge in post, which most consumers simply won't.
professionals will always want the best, but i've got a few vintage primes that still give me more resolution than i know what to do with, and that whole collection would be outpriced by a single modern lens.
I do care for resolution in landscape photography, where I need to crop, and a modern high end lens+sensor lends itself to this usage pattern well.
For portraits, I think less resolution is usually better. I do most of my potrait shots with two decade old lenses despite having nearly all the modern Nikkors in my bag.
I have most of the meaningful AI era Nikkors but then almost completely gave up on 35 mm after getting the Mamiya and two Rolleis. I still used the 35mm Planar though, love it. Sold all the AF Nikkor stuff I used on the dSLR and got a Panasonic m43 with two primes. I will get the 15mm Leica DG next, to replace the unremarkable 14 mm Panasonic. Not going to lug around dSLRs any more.
The primary difference is the emphasis on the “oh” in bokeh vs. the emphasis on “kay” in bouquet.
As someone who's also into cars as a hobby I find photography to be refreshing inexpensive for a hobby. I mean even a top notch Leica Lens will cost only the fraction of a Skyline GT-R ;)