Today I was at an event at Parson Cross that had a falconry display.

Got a few frames that were *exactly* as I wanted them, which in itself is quite an achievement given the birds coulp be travelling dame fast (>100 mph quite easily).

I say exactly, the framing and subject placement in the frames are how I wanted them. But the birds are blurred...so what could have been a pic I would be sooo pleased with its a couple of frames for the <del> treatment :(

Those really expensive fast lenses look more appealing with every shoot!

I'll stick some samples on my flickr in due course if you want to see what I mean!

Are the birds blurred due to not being in focus or too slow a shutter speed being used?

I find prime lenses are good for such subjects.

Fast zoom lenses are £££

Shutter too slow I think, everything else in the same plane is ok.

1/250 sec ish for most of them. Lens I was using would open to f4 @ 200mm. Next time I'll up the ISO a stop or two, but that's something I generally try to avoid doing (to try and stay noise free).

The light was not particularly brilliant today so you probably had a combination of slow shutter speeds and C-AF not locking on. There is no substitute for a fast telephoto, which will get the shutter speed up and help the AF lock.

I bought a f2.8-3.5 100-400 (35mm equivalent) secondhand that has been really useful. I have no doubt that I will still be using it in 5 years time, so amortizing the purchase over several years makes it a little less painful. Camera bodies come and go in the digital age but a good lens will last a long time.....

For my camera, there is a lovely 70-200 f2.8 that I would chew of my right arm for, but no way I can realistically afford it :(

There's also a 300 f2.8 but thats twice as much again! :(

Anyway... have a look at my flickr and hopefully you'll see why I was disappointed. I was well chuffed when I saw I had captured the bird on the camera LCD preview.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dafoot/

Looks like the camera hadn't locked focus on the bird about to dive, maybe the camera was hunting for focus, on a relatively small target area?

I wouldn't have thought 250th would have been too slow if you panned with the movement of the bird.

I know how you feel a few years ago I was watching a barn owl hunt along a railway line and my first generation Canon DSLR simply couldn't keep up with the movement of the bird as it flew towards me.

There was a bit of hunting, but as the speed increased it was a question of hitting the button asap when I had it in frame! I was struggling to keep up, forget about the poor camera!

He he ;)

I was at Cadwell Park for the British Super Bikes during August bank holiday weekend. Never thought I would have trouble keeping a bike in the viewfinder... wrong 160mph a bike becomes difficult to keep up with, easier to photograph jet fighters!

For my camera, there is a lovely 70-200 f2.8 that I would chew of my right arm for, but no way I can realistically afford it :(

There's also a 300 f2.8 but thats twice as much again! :(

Anyway... have a look at my flickr and hopefully you'll see why I was disappointed. I was well chuffed when I saw I had captured the bird on the camera LCD preview.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dafoot/

The 70-200 is a great lens. I tried one on a 20D last year - fast, sharp, rapid focus, stabilisation....at £830 it is actually a bargain. Go on, you know you want one.....

Just looked at your photos - there is motion blur and probably some out of focus as well. I would suggest manual focussing on at a suitable point and bumping up the ISO to get the shutter speed up, then blasting away as the bird approaches the focus point. Noise can be dealt with in PP quite easily if it becomes a problem, or you can do a BW conversion to ditch the chroma noise. An obvious alternative would be to pre-focus and pan using your max frame-rate. Unless you are very experienced you success rate will be low (mine always is!) but you only need that one great shot.

I'd quite like the SSM G version of the lens (I'm on Sony gear not Canon), last time I looked it was around 1500 I think :(

Tried the prefocusing technique, got a few successes with that.

I'd quite like the SSM G version of the lens (I'm on Sony gear not Canon), last time I looked it was around 1500 I think :(

Tried the prefocusing technique, got a few successes with that.

Ah, I thought you were a Canon shooter. Gulp, that Sony 70-200 is a pricey little thing....I imagine that Sony suffers a little like Olympus in not having that many other manufacturers make lenses in that mount?

Can you switch between different IS modes to allow panning on the Sony?

Does Sony use the same lens mount as Konica Minolta?

IS is either on or off in this model. But have it in every lens :)
Yes, minolta mount.
The 3rd party lens makers do make compatible lenses yes.

... Gulp, that Sony 70-200 is a pricey little thing...
certainly is, what is the closest Canon has in it's L range? And what does it cost?

(the Sony G designation is for their premium lenses like the Canon L)

Canon offers three 70-200 L lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 non IS £418.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 IS £699.00
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS £1199.99

and the now discontinued:

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 non IS

The prices above are the best I can find from UK suppliers, buying from overseas may be cheaper, although carriage, duty, VAT and warranty implications have to be taken into account.

If I was shopping for a lens in a similar range now I would look at the Sigma 120 -300 f2.8, seen some lovely images from it.

will be a while before i can afford a new lens. That will prob be a prime macro.

I'm lucky I've been using Canon since 2000 and I have built up a decent collection of lenses, although the 100mm Canon macro will probably be my next lens.