When given the opportunity to do something rare and extraordinary, seize it!
The photo above was taken in a friend's Nanchang CJ-6A aircraft while doing aerobatics over the Los Angeles coastline. How did I get this shot? First, I was lucky enough to have a friend who does this sort of thing as a hobby, and who kindly offered to take me up for a flight. Second, I planned very carefully for it. I visualized the sort of photos that I wanted to capture, and planned out the equipment and techniques that I'd need to capture each shot.
In a situation like this, my preference is to shoot wide - very wide. There's a lot going on up-close which gives context to the situation further away; it's important to capture both in order to get the feeling of adventure and excitement that you typically want in a photo like this. This applies equally to rain-forest zip-lining and racecars as it does to the cockpit of an aerobatic airplane. When you want the viewer to feel like they're part of the excitement in the photo, shoot wide!
In this case I used an Olympus E-PL2 m4/3 camera with a 9-18mm wide-angle lens. The pilot was more comfortable with the smaller and lighter Micro Four Thirds camera than he was with my large and heavy DSLR. If I were to lose hold of the camera while maneuvering, the DSLR could do much more damage to the canopy than the little Olympus. Since the light was good, there wasn't too much compromise in image quality due to the little camera's smaller sensor. In fact, the smaller sensor also gave me a bit more depth-of-field, which was important to get both the cockpit interior and the exterior ground in-focus. That 9-18mm lens offered a 90-degree horizontal field-of-view (equivalent to an 18mm lens on a 35mm full-frame sensor) - a rather wide lens indeed. The 18mm long-end of the lens was plenty enough to be able to zoom-in on the other Nanchang on our wing.
Nanchang Formation
I set the camera up with a fairly narrow aperture to give good depth-of-field (f/8) and ensured fast shutter speeds by setting auto-ISO to adjust exposure for nothing less than 1/320. I set the AF system to use the center point, and used continuous shooting mode. It's difficult to carefully compose photos when pulling Gs in the back of an aerobatic aircraft, so I just did the best I could and clicked away several shots in burst mode during each maneuver. I think the results came out rather well.
White-Knuckle Ride
Here's video footage from the flight, taken using several Go Pro HD Hero cameras:
The photo above was taken in February near the summit of Mt. Washington, New Hampshire. My friend (pictured above) and I hiked on an unseasonably warm winter day, when summit temperatures were around 10 F (-12 C) and winds were less than 20 mph (32 km/h). It's not unusual for temperatures on Mt. Washington to drop well below -20 F (-29 C), with high winds causing wind chills well below -40 F/C. For many years the observatory held the record for the highest wind speed measured on the surface of the earth: 231 mph (372 km/h). Because of the extreme temperatures and winds, Mt. Washington is often referred to as having "the world's worst weather".
The round-trip summit hike takes between 6 and 10 hours depending on hiker fitness, route selection, weather, preparedness, and other factors. Crampons are a must at higher elevations during the winter. An ice-axe is recommended for certain routes. Emergency gear (shelter, extra layers, extra food, extra water, etc) is a must since the weather can turn quickly and rescue services aren't as rapid during the winter. All of the extra winter gear required for a winter hike of this caliber can weigh significantly more than the equipment for the same hike during the summer.
What's a photographer to do? Any hike or climb longer than a few hours is taxing enough on the body, without the extra complication and weight of carrying camera equipment along with you.
My advice: less is more when planning a photography-oriented hike. I carefully evaluate each piece of potential equipment to bring, and ask myself two important questions about it:
Am I very likely to use it?
Is the extra weight that it adds to my pack really worth it?
Only when the answer to both questions is a resounding YES, do I end up taking the peice of gear. That 8mm fisheye might make for some cool photos, but if I'm unlikely to ever mount it up then why bring it along? The same goes for that 300mm f/4. Sure, I could get some great wildlife photos with it, but maybe I can get some photos that are almost as good using a much lighter lens? Using this method, I took a very minimalistic set of equipment with me on the Mt. Washington hike:
Clik Elite Large SLR Chest Pack: protects the camera well while providing fast access to it, which is a necessity for hiking.
That's it! If I thought I might have encountered some wildlife as well, I'd also have brought a fairly light telephoto with me (like the Nikon 55-300mm VR).
Remember: packing light doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to miss the shot. Plan and evaluate your needs carefully, and you should be able to maximize both your hiking enjoyment and the quality of your resulting photos.
As 2011 comes to an end and the New Year rolls in, I'd like to share with you a few of my most popular photos from this past year. I hope that they provide inspiration to you in the coming year. Enjoy.
The Red LineNovember LightToronto Heavy RailWaitingNanchang CJ-6 Deep Dive
From left to right: 55-200 VR, 55-300 VR, 70-300 VR, and 300mm f/4 AF.
Hoods extended:
A few handling notes:
The 70-300 VR is the only lens in this bunch to have full-time AF override by simply turning the focus ring. All three other lenses must be switched to manual-focus mode before their focus rings may be adjusted.
The 55-300 VR grows a bit in size when focused at its minimum. Take a look at this image to see the difference.
The 55-300 VR features an innovative new snap-on lens hood. Unlike the 55-200 VR and 70-300 VR which have hoods that turn to lock and unlock, this new hood simply clicks on in any position. To remove it, there are two small buttons on the side which have to be depressed. I found installation to be a breeze (it clips on easily in either direction), but removal can be tricky sometimes due to the slightly finicky buttons on the hood.
The 55-300 VR has a front element which rotates while autofocusing. This can be a serious downside to shooters who frequently shoot through polarizing filters. Oddly enough, the even cheaper 55-200 VR does not suffer from this fault
How well are these lenses built? All three 300mm lenses feel very solid. The only real disappointment of the bunch is the 55-200 VR, which has a very light and plastic-ridden feel to it, though this is expected due to its $150 pricetag. The older, all-metal-bodied 300mm f/4 is built like a tank, and has an incredibly strudy and solid feel. The 70-300 VR is made of plastic, but despite this it has a very solid and high-quality feel to it. The real surprise of the bunch is the 55-300 VR, which is incredibly well-made lens given its $250 pricetag.
Weight
Lens weight/size is a very important issue for me since I often use my camera while traveling, on hikes, and during other strenuous activities. The 55-200 VR is incredibly light, and for this reason it has been my favorite telephoto zoom to bring traveling or on a hike. The 55-300 VR is a bit heavier (1.6 times heavier than the 55-200 VR, to be exact), but it's still light enough to bring on a hike without having to think twice about it. Of course it has the added advantage of being able to reach 300mm, so it will most likely replace my 55-200 VR as my hiking telephoto. The 70-300 VR is on the heavy side for long hikes, and it can even be tiring to hand-hold during an all-day walk at the zoo. The 300mm f/4 is quite heavy, and so I tend to only use this lens when the added image quality potential really outweighs the difficulty that's required to get it where I need to go.
To recap the weight relationships: the 55-200 VR is very light. The 55-300 VR is about one-and-a-half 55-200 VRs... still on the light-enough side to take hiking. The 70-300 VR is about one-and-a-half 55-300 VRs... getting heavy. The 300 f/4 is a portly thing weighing in at four 55-200 VRs, or about two 70-300 VRs. For the exact weights, see the vital stats image above.
Autofocus
The 70-300 VR and, surprisingly, the 55-200 VR really shine here. Both have very snappy and accurate AF systems. The 300mm f/4 is a tad bit sluggish on consumer DX bodies like the D7000 and D90 due to its screw-drive AF system. It's much faster on bodies like the D3 or older film cameras like the F100. The only real disappointment is the new 55-300 VR, which has very slow AF, taking about twice as long to focus as the 55-200 VR, or almost four times as long to focus as the 70-300 VR.
Check out the video below:
Image Quality
70-300 VR: excellent pro-sumer level image quality. Good results wide-open, and even better when stopped-down.
55-200 VR: adequate-enough image quality, especially when stopped-down to f/8. The 200mm maximum focal length can be limiting, especially for wildlife.
Note: Since the 55-300 VR is a recent acquisition, I do not yet have any real-world sample images to post for it. Look for an update with these after I've spent a little more time with this lens.
70-300 VR: Jonathan Papelbon
70-300 VR: Hummingbird
70-300 VR: Jarno Trulli
70-300 VR: Meow
300mm f/4: Great Blue Heron
300mm f/4: Spring Has Sprung
300mm f/4: Why Hello There
55-200 VR: Harbor Seal
55-200 VR: Welcome to Portugal
55-200 VR: Cinematic Boston
Conclusion
The 55-300 VR is a lens that's full of compromises. Its image quality (in terms of sharpness and contrast) is quite good, especially for lens of its size. It absolutely blows the older 55-200 VR out of the water, especially since it has an extra 100mm of reach. However, the AF performance and odd build choices (rotating front element, strange lens hood) can be serious drawbacks. The FX shooter doesn't have to think twice here, but what about the DX shooter? Can a 55-300 VR replace the 70-300 VR which you already carry in your bag? For me, this answer is an emphatic "yes", especially since the image quality between these are fairly similar. The light weight and relatively small size of the 55-300 VR make up for its slow autofocus and other small faults. The extra focal length available over the 55-200 VR and the fact that it only weighs a bit more make it a top choice for me while hiking and traveling. Casual wildlife shooters who currently use the 70-300 VR will probably want to pass on the 55-300 VR because of the glacial AF performance. For serious wildlife shooting, I'll be sticking to my 300mm f/4, but for my lightweight telephoto needs, the 55-300 VR will be replacing both my 55-200 VR and my 70-300 VR.
Update on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 6:42PM by
Mike Cialowicz
As promised here are two more real-world samples taken with Nikon's 55-300 VR:
Sunday, March 4, 2012 at 6:57PM 
Unusual Attitude
Nanchang Formation
White-Knuckle Ride
: a very useful focal-length range.
, and the tried-and-true 
)
, and the very budget-friendly 
.;)
