Shirozina

That won't work as the  adaptor body is not the same thickness as the non speedbooster adapter. With speedboosters the adjustment if you are short of infinity is to wind the optical group towards the sensor.

Starting on a budget I'd not look at any of the suggestions to be honest - here's my take;
Best sounding starter sound recorder IME is the tiny Sony PCM-M10 which can take self powered mics via the 3.5mm jack. Can be mounted on a hotshoe, 2 AAA batteries last for ever, tiny put in your pocket take anywhere recorder you will still keep even when you buy more expensive gear. 
When you have saved up for better phantom powered mics then the best and cheapest option is to get hold of a used Fostex FR2LE - it's pre amps are not far off the SoundDevices 7 series i.e if you can't get good enough sound for your film with it then it's not the fault of the recorder. ( sometimes wonder why I upgraded......)
Spending a bit more  or simply an alternative  would be a SoundDevices mixer pre to combine with a Sony M-10. 
Beyond this you are really getting into the realm of being a  dedicated sound recordist and we are not even talking about the real tools of sound - the microphone.

Xrite i1 display pro IME is best cheap calibrator but the stock software lets it down and you can get much better results with DisplayCal.

Xrite i1 display pro IME is best cheap calibrator but the stock software lets it down and you can get much better results with DisplayCal.

DisplayCal is a great software, free and open source, plus it's more powerful than the stock softwares from Spyder and Xrite.

I calibrated my display with it and did the calibration with the Spyder's stock software to compare.

The software DisplayCal applies a driver level correction while the software from Spyder did like an overlay which glitched in certain applications and was visually much less accurate.

Xrite i1 display pro IME is best cheap calibrator but the stock software lets it down and you can get much better results with DisplayCal.

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

They both look terrible - more indicative of the users failure to expose, WB and grade + poor profile choice than the inherent 'colour science' of Sony vs Fuji

Agree - no point in capturing in analogue if you are going to mash it up with a digital scan. Back in the day drum scanners did the best job with everything else quite a way behind apart from perhaps the Imacon. Not even sure if drum scanners are still around as the tech needed to run them is now obsolete. 

Don't even bother scanning your negatives. Way too much money for a good scanner, and the results are worse than sending the negatives off and having a professional company scan, and even print them for you. Might be worth having a printer, but even that is better left to Pro shops to be honest.
I think the magic of this is getting and old camera with no Auto Anything and using a light meter to figure out what you need. If you are use to shooting you can use the Sunny 16 rule. But it will not be super accurate, especially if shadows are involved. This is more about being slow and observing your surrounds for a better angle to shoot more than just taking a picture quickly, then running to the next location.
It is about the experience more than the shots. Just slow down and enjoy it, don't make it a job. You are suppose to look back at the 10 shots you took when you get the negatives or prints back and smile about the experience, fun you had, that is what it is about. Remembering the beauty of the location, smiling about the person you took a picture of. I just don't think you can do that shooting a Digital camera. It is too easy to accomplish with one. Just less satisfaction in it.

In my opinion, and I know many people won't agree, but I wouldn't buy a film camera just for the experience. You can get that digitally. Turn off all burst modes and all auto functions. Limit yourself to one click every couple of seconds, turn off the preview and don't put the card into your computer for a few days. Of course it's still different, but the lessons of intention will still apply, and you'll quickly find it's not all that romantic. The Sigma DP1 and DP2 do a very good job of replicating the experience. As for making it look like film, yeah sure, nothing beats the real thing, but why stop with stills? Grab a 16mm camera for video while you're at it.
With all that said, film cameras are mega cheap. I don't want to tell you how to spend your money, but I'd definitely start out with an old AE1 before moving to the Hasselblads and Leicas, test the waters before jumping to the big guns. Also, maybe consider a camera that does something a digital body cant. For example I do shoot a fair bit of 35mm, but only because there's no worthwhile, reasonably priced digital equivalent.
The Stereo Realist and others like it expose two full 35mm frames with each click, so you have the standard photos, but you can also make a stereo image, which is really immersive. Queen's Brian May has always been into this type of photography, and his website www.londonstereo.com has some great info on getting started etc.

The CEX website has some good deals but I'm not sure everything in the stores is up there. You have to ask where some of this stuff comes from if someone can walk in off the street with a bit of kit and then walk out with some cash.........

Update -  I have got the 850 to work in another enclosure  https://www.startech.com/uk/HDD/Enclosures/usb-3-1-msata-drive-enclosure~SMS1BMU313
It's quite big but has ventilation holes. I picked up a used one for under £10.

ebay but a long time ago but I'll check the transaction list to see if I can find it.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/1091701075

ebay but a long time ago but I'll check the transaction list to see if I can find it.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/c/1091701075

The Samsung EVO  860 works but the 850 doesn't. Don't know the models of the enclosures as they are cheap no-brand ebay purchases.

I've got a 1tb mSATA drive in a USB 3.1 enclosure that works with BRAW at the highest data rates.  You have to be careful though as I've got a very slightly different enclosure and mSATA that the camera doesn't recognise.

Metabones didn't invent focalreducers.

If the GH5 was released today it would be hailed as a 'game changer' (apologies if I've said as much before)

The IQ of the GH5 in 'open gate' mode is IMO better than in the UHD/4k modes. It's got cleaner detail with none of the obvious sharpening that some users complain about in UHD/4k and the shadows are slightly less noisy and have cleaner blacks. More importantly it's got no aliasing artefacts in fine detail (when suitably downsampled in your NLE) which is the major flaw with BM cameras using 1:1 sampling sensors. Just curious but why are you not a fan of h.265?

I may buy another one and sell my 'original' model to a cDNG'ist for a healthy profit!

I may buy another one and sell my 'original' model to a cDNG'ist for a healthy profit!

I may buy another one and sell my 'original' model to a cDNG'ist for a healthy profit!