Quality of Adapted Lenses?

With my current camera acting up in what are probably expensive ways, I’m pretty sure I’ll be in the market for an upgrade replacement before long. I own a Samsung NX20, but the new offerings of this year incline me powerfully toward the cameras of Olympus and Panasonic.

One of my favorite features of mirrorless cameras is their ability to take lenses made for other cameras and, via simple adapters, keep those lenses useful. I have a complete battery of MC/MD lenses made for Minolta 35mm film cameras, running the gamut from 8mm circular fisheye to 400mm plus 2X and 3X tele-converters. On the Samsung all serve, allowing for the altered fields of view, to one degree or another, still taking great pictures. Herein lies the premise of a question.

Having acquired a new m43 camera, how well can I expect adapted lenses to work? My experience is with the NX20. On that machine, considerable testing indicates that telephotos (in 35mm terms) function flawlessly, with lenses in the 50ish range best stopped down a bit, while wide angle lenses need a lot more stopping down, which can limit their utility. In the foregoing sharpness is the main issue, sometimes contrast and ghosting.

That’s the simple version of my experience. Given my budget, for m43 I’d get a cheap kit zoom, maybe a single nice prime, otherwise continue working with my oldies. I’m wondering, obviously, what sort of reception will my adapted lenses receive? Is it all a wash between brands, or is m43 better or worse (due to register distance, light angles, whatever the usual suspects are), or uniquely different? Numerous statements and pictorial samples in this forum convince me that I can enjoy my Minolta lenses, therefore what I’m asking for is opinions on perceived limitations.

I appreciate any information provided.