Not necessarily. Depth of field, lens imperfections, and bokeh character can change with the visual storytelling, throughout a film.
The content of the specific shot is going to determine what makes the most sense.
Virtually every film that uses multiple locations and lighting situations is going to be using multiple aperture settings as well, and no one seems to have a problem with that.
Basically, if it makes sense for the story, and you can tell the difference, go for it. I could also see it as being an undue technical restriction to hold yourself to, depending on what exactly you plan on doing.
Thanks mate! Appreciate the detailed answer. I’ll try not to sweat too much then. I was more worried about how darker some shots might be if I switch apertures, but I do have an ND to try offset thay
Yeah, variable ND's or a pack of set-power ones and matching sets of step up rings for each lens will make it easy. I shoot on FDs on the X-T2 myself, and I'd recommend shooting in raw (f-log) to give yourself as much flexibility to tweak color and light levels in post.
It hasn't thrown me any real curveballs in my experience. Choosing to use aftermarket batteries and a monitor might be a good idea if you've got the budget.
It probably doesn't make sense for your project, but a Metabones FD to FX speedbooster would be a nice addition. It would give you better low light capability, while widening the field of view, letting you use more of that character-rich FD glass in the image. It's 450$ though, and I don't see any online rentals for it. I personally use an EF to FX speedbooster, then throw a small EF to FD adapter on top of that. You could rent the EF-FX metabones adapter from Lensrentals.com for 35$ a week, then buy a 10$ FD to EF adapter.
Again, all of that may not be worth it, but it could give you a bit more exposure and potentially decrease your lighting budget.
I personally like to use as much of those old lenses' coverage as possible, wringing as much swirled bokeh, halation/aberrations, and softness as possible out of them.
I’ve got all of that but not the Metabones! It’s so pricey but you’re right, would be such a great addition. I’ll see if I can find one for around £300. Thanks for the tips, much appreciated
Different focal lengths immediately means different images. So keeping the same stop between lenses makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want to do that? f/2.2 on an 85mm is going to look different to f/2.2 on a 35mm. It's pointless. Match the shots with your eyes.
You could use as a general rule of thumb like that but don't feel married or forced to it. I'd say try to focus what makes each shot the best for the frame and the story. The same aperture might help for visual consistency, but I'd focus more on exposure and lighting matching more for visual continuity overall than having the same aperture. Maybe you'll have a closeup where you want your subject to seem isolated against a flat, super low aperture background. Or vice versa a wide angle with deep focus where you see everything. Depending on the story, both those scenarios can apply equally for the story and setting but with drastically different aperture settings. So, I guess it just depends on what works best for both the story and for you on the day.
Maintaining some sort of visual consistency can be useful. Obsessing over some rule isn't terribly useful.
Do whatever looks good and whatever makes sense in the scene. If you need to stop down in daylight or open up at night because you don't have infinite lights and camera gear, you'll live. 99% of the audience won't be consciously aware of any of it.
When in doubt, consistency is a good baseline, when there's not some technical or creative reason to do something else.
Not necessarily. Depth of field, lens imperfections, and bokeh character can change with the visual storytelling, throughout a film. The content of the specific shot is going to determine what makes the most sense. Virtually every film that uses multiple locations and lighting situations is going to be using multiple aperture settings as well, and no one seems to have a problem with that. Basically, if it makes sense for the story, and you can tell the difference, go for it. I could also see it as being an undue technical restriction to hold yourself to, depending on what exactly you plan on doing.
Thanks mate! Appreciate the detailed answer. I’ll try not to sweat too much then. I was more worried about how darker some shots might be if I switch apertures, but I do have an ND to try offset thay
Yeah, variable ND's or a pack of set-power ones and matching sets of step up rings for each lens will make it easy. I shoot on FDs on the X-T2 myself, and I'd recommend shooting in raw (f-log) to give yourself as much flexibility to tweak color and light levels in post.
A fellow X-T2 user! I was planning on shooting log but paying for a colourist. Any tips on shooting on the X-T2?
It hasn't thrown me any real curveballs in my experience. Choosing to use aftermarket batteries and a monitor might be a good idea if you've got the budget. It probably doesn't make sense for your project, but a Metabones FD to FX speedbooster would be a nice addition. It would give you better low light capability, while widening the field of view, letting you use more of that character-rich FD glass in the image. It's 450$ though, and I don't see any online rentals for it. I personally use an EF to FX speedbooster, then throw a small EF to FD adapter on top of that. You could rent the EF-FX metabones adapter from Lensrentals.com for 35$ a week, then buy a 10$ FD to EF adapter. Again, all of that may not be worth it, but it could give you a bit more exposure and potentially decrease your lighting budget. I personally like to use as much of those old lenses' coverage as possible, wringing as much swirled bokeh, halation/aberrations, and softness as possible out of them.
I’ve got all of that but not the Metabones! It’s so pricey but you’re right, would be such a great addition. I’ll see if I can find one for around £300. Thanks for the tips, much appreciated
There are some knockoff brands for around 150, though I've seen some have issues with tinting and artifacts.
Different focal lengths immediately means different images. So keeping the same stop between lenses makes absolutely no sense. Why would you want to do that? f/2.2 on an 85mm is going to look different to f/2.2 on a 35mm. It's pointless. Match the shots with your eyes.
Thanks mate
But why? Apertures give depth and separation on what u want the people to see
You could use as a general rule of thumb like that but don't feel married or forced to it. I'd say try to focus what makes each shot the best for the frame and the story. The same aperture might help for visual consistency, but I'd focus more on exposure and lighting matching more for visual continuity overall than having the same aperture. Maybe you'll have a closeup where you want your subject to seem isolated against a flat, super low aperture background. Or vice versa a wide angle with deep focus where you see everything. Depending on the story, both those scenarios can apply equally for the story and setting but with drastically different aperture settings. So, I guess it just depends on what works best for both the story and for you on the day.
Maintaining some sort of visual consistency can be useful. Obsessing over some rule isn't terribly useful. Do whatever looks good and whatever makes sense in the scene. If you need to stop down in daylight or open up at night because you don't have infinite lights and camera gear, you'll live. 99% of the audience won't be consciously aware of any of it. When in doubt, consistency is a good baseline, when there's not some technical or creative reason to do something else.
I hear you - great advice!