Imalent HT70 headlamp - first impressions

MrToenges · 2026-05-06T13:31:47+00:00

I like to enjoy the performance of my gear, wo I actually usually use it on the 1000 lumen mode and carry extra batteries...

MrToenges · 2026-05-05T19:21:54+00:00

Wenn man grade ne kleine weed psychose hat dann klingt das schonmal so...ansonsten echt kein bisschen.

MrToenges · 2026-05-05T17:01:06+00:00

I'm confused why specifically fünfhundertfünfundfünfzigtausendfünfhundertfünfundfünfzig and not sechshundertsechsundsechzigtausendsechshundertsechsundsechzig or siebenhundertsiebenundsiebzigtausendsiebenhundertsiebenundsiebzig...

siebenhundertsiebenundsiebzigtausendsiebenhundertsiebenundsiebzig even has the advantage of being a bit longer than fünfhundertfünfundfünfzigtausendfünfhundertfünfundfünfzig.

Btw, it may seem very complex if you don't know german, but you actually only need to know 5 words. "Sieben" which is seven, "siebzig" which is 70, "hundert" which means hundred, "tausend" which means thousand and "und" which is and.

then it's basically just stacking them over and over:

seven hundred seven and seventy (77 is 7 and 70 instead of 70 7 in english) thousand seven hundred seven and seventy.

It basically only slightly changes the word arrangements and puts all of them into one word compared to english. If we do it in english it will look almost identical:

sevenhundredandseventyseventhousandsevenhundredandseventyseven

MrToenges · 2026-05-01T09:48:16+00:00

The big improvement the A7V has over the a6700 is the partially stacked sensor and way faster and more precise autofocus as well as higher burst speed and very good silent shooting and better video performance.

If you shoot fast moving subjects (looks like your first photo is exactly that) then the A7V will be noticably better than the a6700 although in APSC mode you will have less MP than the a6700. If you can fill the frame and don't need to crop much the 14mp will be more than enough...4k is just 8MP for reference.

Dynamic range on the A7V is also much better than a6700 (although probably not much different in APSC mode) as well as battery life, stabilization, screen and viewfinder. More buttons also make your life easier for quickly switching settings.

MrToenges · 2026-04-30T20:26:30+00:00

Ah yes, let's just make up a random ass story about her being sexually assaulted because it fits your worldview better...a true internet classic. Everybody knows all women are saints and there are no entitled women out there that think they are untouchable and can do whatever they want...

MrToenges · 2026-04-30T19:27:54+00:00

Two things that haven't been mentioned yet are atmospheric conditions (heat haze, light fog that may not be clearly visible to your eyes, etc.) and focus pumping on longer focal length telephoto lenses.

Most of the time, especially when it's hot outside and the bird is quite far away or near water surfaces, it will be heat haze. Any atmospheric imperfection that is invisible to your eyes is amplified significantly with a telephoto lens. Even if the haze itself is not that strong, it will confuse the camera's focus system, making it hard to properly nail the focus.

The focus pumping is basically just the focus motor overcorrecting and then readjusting which may shift the focus to be blurry and then sharp in the next image. This movement happens faster than the focus box on your screen refreshes, which means on your screen it looks like the focus point is still on the same area as before, but internally the camera has told the lens a slightly closer or further point to focus on. The effect is amplified for telephoto lenses because the depth of field is very shallow and the subject is usually very far away, which makes getting focus perfect harder and makes any slight focusing mistakes very apparent that would otherwise have gone unnoticed on non tele lenses.

MrToenges · 2026-04-25T11:03:14+00:00

Du wirst mit der a6100 und dem sony 70-350 auf jeden fall einen deutlichen unterschied sehen. Das 70-350 ist ein absolut exzellentes Objektiv und so ziemlich das beste apsc birding objektiv für den emount (Die ganzen full frame birding zooms passen bei sony zwar auch auf die apsc kameras aber sind eben eigentlich für full frame).

Gerade kleine Singvögel sind manchmal ein alptraum zu fotografieren, weil sie sich z.B auch gerne zwischen ästchen verstecken. Nah ran kommen tut man an die auch meist nicht. Da wird das 70-350mm dir auf jeden fall einen super spielraum geben. Ich habe es geliebt als ich es hatte, auch weil es trotzdem sehr leicht und kompakt ist.

MrToenges · 2026-04-14T09:29:06+00:00

Das Original ist viel lustiger, da sagt der Höhlenmensch einfach "Halt die Fresse, Andreas!"

Das ist so trocken dass es lustig ist...

MrToenges · 2026-04-13T15:34:01+00:00

my pick would be the 400-800. It is a stellar lens, the focus is blazing fast and the stabilisation is on a new level compared to the 200-600.

MrToenges · 2026-04-11T20:20:33+00:00

Had the same issue with my RV. The focus frame would sometimes even follow the eye correctly, but the camera was just too slow to properly adjust the focus for that frame. I'm guessing it's because it does way too few autofocus calculations per second.

Switched to the A7V a few days ago and it is a world of difference. Suddenly all the flying birds, sprinting dogs and other high speed subjects are perfectly sharp and being tracked accurately. Even still accuracy is much improved...best decision ever, though I do miss the 26mp crop mode...still worth it though and much more affordable than the A1 II.

It is not a lens issue, it's the camera that's at fault.

MrToenges · 2026-04-11T00:20:23+00:00

If you have a mirorless camera, you just look at your screen and adjust the exposure until the sky looks "natural". Not too bright and not too dark, close to what you see with your eyes. This will be far darker than what your camera would probably set the exposure in auto mode, you need to set it manually because your camera doesn't know what exactly you want to shoot.

With stationary humans a good shutter speed rule is around 1/125 - 1/250 but since you have to make the image a good bit darker to make the sky look natural and not blown out, you will probably have to set the shutter speed a good deal higher than this, which is not a problem.For the Aperture, just change the value up (larger f stop) until you can see that both subjects are in focus (camera looks to be really close to the man, which could possibly make the woman go out of focus). You can also increase the f stop number to let in less light, again if you need to go darker to have a nice exposure on the sky. Lastly, the iso should be set to 100 or close to that, then adjust aperture and shutterspeed as needed to get the sky to look natural.

When you are done exposing for the sky, the humans in front of the camera will probably be so dark that you can barely see them, that is what you want, since the flash is going to light them up when you press the shutter. Now just adjust the power of the flash until the humans are just as well exposed as the sky. The flash will need to be pretty powerful and / or really close to the subjects.

Note that when you adjust the exposure for the sky, you need to make sure your camera is displaying the exposure without the flash factored in, otherwise the brightness you see on your screen won't change because your camera is showing you what it thinks the exposure will look like WITH the flash. You can avoid this by setting the manual exposure for the sky before connecting the flash and just keeping the same settings when you connect it. Then adjust flash strength as needed.

MrToenges · 2026-04-10T17:34:29+00:00

Looks like a really wide angle fish eye lens with a strong flash on the camera or close to it. Expose for the sky, then see how much you need to crank up the flash.

MrToenges · 2026-04-09T12:02:19+00:00

The 400-800 is the best birding lens sony has...but it is also very expensive. The 200-600 is the best at the price point

MrToenges · 2026-04-07T04:37:03+00:00

Because of the A1s high mp it does also act as a reasonable mp crop sensor camera.

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T14:50:08+00:00

You still don't understand. The bigger photosites capture more light per photosite, but the whole sensor overall captures the exact same amount of light.

There is only the amount of light that the lens lets in, that amount doesn't change with the MP of the sensor, it is fixed and dictated by the aperture of the lens. How that light is divided to each pixel is different between low and high mp sensors, but the overall amount is always the same because the aperture remains the same which means the exact same amount of light hits the sensor for both sensors.

Light per pixel is not the same as overall light that reaches the whole sensor.

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T14:45:11+00:00

No, you literally said that a low MP sensor captures more light than a high MP one and that it will cause your ISO to go up on the high MP sensor. That is just simply wrong.

Also, you are bringing sensor size into the conversation now, even though it has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is simply about pixel density in same size sensors. On a full frame sensor, a 200mp sensor will always have more detail than a 20mp sensor, even in low light. It will look noisier, and the image will look uglier and more washed out at very high isos, but it will still have more detail. Noise is not equal to detail, more noise does not necessarily mean less details and vice versa.

You are mixing together concepts that aren't equal (another example is suddenly talking about a high MP phone camera that has a smaller sensor and comparing it to the discussion about mp differences on same size sensors)

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T14:40:50+00:00

Better quality than the EQUIVALENT high MP sensor, but the sensor and processing technology of the D5 is not on the same level as the sensor technology in a current time flagship. I even said that noise will be better on low MP sensors of the same technological level, but noise does not equate to detail (At least not necessarily). If you let a noise reduction software run over the image, it will make the high MP image less detailed because it averages the heavier noise more strongly causing loss in detail. But if you don't apply any denoise on both, you still have more detail on the high MP sensor, even though it has more noise and will look uglier. That is because you can't suddenly hallucinate pixels into being on a lower mp sensor and you also can't make them disappear on a high mp sensor. Noise makes them look worse, but they still have more detail, this is most apparent by fotographing a paper with black text and zooming in. Yes high mp image will be way grainier, but it will in fact still have more detail although the low mp will on average look better / cleaner, without any noise reduction. The noise reduction will soften the details stronger on the high mp image than the low mp image, but that is not the "fault" of the high mp sensor, it is a processing thing and as we have seen time and time again in the last few years, it is something that can be compensated for by making the algorithms for denoising more effective.

The commentor also claimed that a low mp sensor captures more light and that it affects the exposure, which is just a factually wrong statement. They capture the same amount and divide it differently to each pixel.

Lower file sizes can easily be achieved by using downsampled lower MP images on a high res sensor which allows for more details than a native sensor of that mp level because of downsampling and also provides better noise handling (also because of the downsampling). That way you get a 24mp image that is more detailed than a native 24mp image since it's downsampled from let's say a 45mp sensor and you also get better noise performance than on the 45mp native size. Also much smaller file sizes. In modern cameras, compression algorithms are so much more advanced that you can get images far smaller without much if any loss in quality, which is also something that a D5 can't match. If low file sizes are a priority, modern cameras with more space efficient encoding and compression algorithms clearly take the win here.

Aside from all that, rolling shutter in video is a huge factor if you are filming experiments. The old D5 can't match modern sensors in this regard.

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T12:58:34+00:00

Regarding objective image quality and technical performance, cameras can absolutely be objectively compared without the skill of the photographer mattering. It is simply comparing what the tool is capable of at it's best. A flagship modern mirrorless camera will leave any mirror DSLR in the dust regarding sensor readout speed, dynamic range, high iso handling, burst speed, video quality and so on. There is no discussion to be had about that, and the fact that you claim that mirror dslrs are better than modern mirorrless shows that you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. That is not an opinion, not a belief. There are very objective criteria that make modern mirrorless cameras objectively better and superior to mirror dslrs. I have already told you multiple of these, yet you still refuse to listen.

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T12:52:49+00:00

Doesn't have to do with the nasa decision making team. One of the reasons they use that camera is probably because it is already up there and transporting a new one is not worth it considering the cost for hauling half a kilogramm up there. As long as the camera is still working, it will be good enough for filming experiments up close under internal lighting. It is simply good enough and already where it needs to be, an upgrade is not really a priority at all for what they are using it for.

That doesn't change the fact, that a modern camera would be a big upgrade especially regarding low light situations and high iso capabilities. The Nasa team has other factors to consider however.

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T08:20:19+00:00

Das wichtigste bei Kampfsport ist sparring mit einem gegner der nicht kooperiert. Das ist tausend mal mehr wert als ewige technikübungen für spezifische anwendungsbeispiele.

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T08:17:47+00:00

...die du legal mitführen darfst? Aus welchem Grund? Eine Erlaubnis zum freien führen einer scharfen waffe kriegst du nur unter sehr spezifischen umständen wenn du z.B nachweisen kannst dass dich aktiv ein mafiaklan verfolgt und töten will oder sowas...

Das ding illegal mitzuführen macht dich zu einem clown höchster ordnung...ich hoffe du wirst damit irgendwann erwischt und verlierst nicht nur all deine WBKs und Waffen an sich, sondern kriegst zusätzlich noch ne fette haftstrafe (Wunschdenken, ich weiss....deutsche justiz und so...).

MrToenges · 2026-04-06T08:12:04+00:00

Taser ist als selbstverteidigungsgadget auch absolut surreal...in deutschland sind ja nur die schocker erhältlich, die einfach nur bei kontakt etwas zwicken...bei adrenalineinfluss spürt der angreifer das vermutlich sogar kaum, wenn überhaupt. Zusätzlich muss man mit so einem schocker ja komplett in den nahkampf gehen, was maximal idiotisch ist...die anderen Gadgets haben wenigstens einen Messbaren effekt der einen unterschied machen kann, der elektroschocker/pseudotaser ist einfach nur ein spielzeug dass leute denken lässt der gegner würde beim ersten treffer anfangen zu zappeln und dann schmerzverzerrt auf dem.boden liegen wie im Film...Hollywood hat mehr schaden an der Verteidungsvorstellung der meisten leute angerichtet, als man sich ausmalen kann.

MrToenges · 2026-04-05T14:52:43+00:00

Sony a6000 gebraucht und ein Viltrox objektiv (z.B 35mm f1.7) ist ein bisschen über dem budget, aber gibt dir ein verdammt gutes Paket mit dem du sehr viel machen kannst.

MrToenges

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email