< Home

It’s been such a long time since I’ve recommended a song that I’ve forgotten how to link the song to iTunes Store.

Today on my way home from work, I heard a commercial promoting Corinne Bailey Rae’s new album. I’ve always found a particular affinity to her music, maybe in part due to her jazzy tone or the fact that its just overall relaxing to listen to her music. I say its particular because I don’t like ALL her songs, but the ones I do like, I actuallylove a lot. One can really picture themselves sitting Starbucks drinking a coffee, while watching life pass by, against the backdrop of a warm sunsetting sky. But I digress, I came home and quickly checked out the popular songs on her new album on ITS, and immediately fell in love with the following track. Will be exploring the rest of this album in detail soon!

You Tube Link

I am running out of iTunes monies!!!

After being infused with a fresh $20 giftcard about a month ago, I am almost down to nothing due to renting movies, $4.99 a pop! While the price feels steep in relation to buying single songs, it is:
a. in line with renting from blockbuster and
b. super convenient,
You’re able to start the movie about one-minute after you rent because it downloads in the BG, which makes it really convenient (and good for someone such as myself–re: instant gratification). My one gripe is that once you start the movie, you have 48-hours to complete it. I think originally, the time limit was 24-hours, but its been extended to 48-hours, which, still, IMO is a bit short, it’s not like they really need the file back to rent to others, so I’m not sure what the rationale is there.

Well, this was originally supposed to just be a comment in response to yfa’s SOTD post but it became too off topic and long to be a comment..

Background: After receiving my present: Oakley Flak Jackets XLJ (LiveStrong Edition), I was once again met with my predicament of trying contact lenses. After failing numerous times, I decided to look for the easy way out–buying a set of RX lenses for the frames. I figure I can use benefits, now that I don’t have to buy the frames, it shouldn’t cost that much right?

The Search Begins: If you thought that it shouldn’t be that hard to find an optical shop that can do RX-you’d be grossly mistaken. After calling a few stores met with no success, I called the Oakley Vault store, and they said by Canadian law, they cannot sell RX lenses without an optician and they suggested EyeStar and LensCrafters. EyeStar quoted $3-400. When I called LensCrafters, I was quoted $170 (no tax; in Canada, apparently no tax on RX lenses, not sure if this will change with HST). With a CAA membership, you should be able to get 15% off so I figure wow, lenses for just under $150 and change. I should do it up. But first I’ll check it out in store to confirm pricing and then maybe check a few more stores.

The Confrontation: So after work last night, I stopped by the Lens Crafters (Hillcrest Mall location) and was met by an unfriendly woman behind the counter (ok, maybe she wasn’t not unfriendly, she was just stern and not what you’d expect from somebody working in a front-line business). In short, she told me that Lens Crafters ONLY does RX lenses on frames that are purchased in house. When I told her it was Oakley Vault who actually referred me to them, she abruptly interrupted me saying that only frames sold by Lens Crafters were the ones they’d be able to do RX for as they have to ship the frames to Oakley for them to mount the lenses. I repeatedly told her that I spoke with another rep from that store, and they quoted me $170 for the lenses and such, but she insisted, that they only do it if they sell the frames. Reason? Because when they ship the frames to Oakley (apparently), the frame gets cracked really easily, and if they shipped my frames, they’d be liable for the damage and thus they don’t want to be on the line for it. I also told her the Flak jackets were listed on their website, to which she came up with a lame excuse saying, that their website is not a correct representation of store stock, (and they cannot order them or something). So I went along with her, and checked out their store stock and within 30s, I found the Flak jackets. (now becoming more agitated because she clearly doesn’t know what she’s talking about), I confront her, and ask her for a quote for frames and lenses. The flak jackets are selling at a premium of $250 (when the MSRP is $180), and she looks through her papers, $515 for the lenses for a total of $765. Floored with disbelief, I asked her to check again, I said my prescription is quite simple, -3.00 and -2.00 (well within the limits of Oakley’s RX lenses) and I didn’t need anything special, just grey or black with irridium coating, I showed her my prescription. She then proceeded to show me on paper, $515 to prove to me, this is the cost. And she says, this is the price, you must buy both frame+lens, otherwise you’re SOL.

I went home, quite upset at the fact that the initial rep I spoke with apparently didn’t know what he was talking about, and of course there is no accountability. So I called up Lens Crafters Promenade to confirm if all this was true, because it sounds a little insane, how would somebody ever buy Oakley RX sunglasses, surely I cannot be the only person looking to do this. I explained to her my sitaution, and made it clear I was looking for lenses for the Flak Jackets, and she quoted me w/out irridium: $317, w/ irridum $374. Further, they DO accept the frames if purchased elsewhere, they just ship the frame off to Oakley for the lenses to be added and if anything happens, Lens Crafters will take responsibility. She added, that because the Oakley store carried more styles than they did, that people typically buy their frames elsewhere, then bring it to them for RX lenses. Completely surprised, I confirmed that Oakley has a standard pricing chart (to which the CAA membership discount does not apply to these lenses), and then asked her why the other rep quoted me $515. She responded: “oh that’s if you wanted RX, w/Irridium, w/polarization AND progressive.

My Gripe: Why would the rep at the Hillcrest location quote me for their most expensive lenses, while knowing that I didn’t need progressive? Is it because the recession has somehow made their business SO successful that they’re ok with turning away business? Why did she so adamantly tell me that this was Lens Crafters’ policy, and every store would sell only frame+lens. What bugs me is theses people say things without any accountability, and its not like you can fight them. I’d launch a formal complaint against that store, but it’d probably be a waste of effort yielding no result, that is why I’ve posted it here, maybe people searching for stories of bad service from Lens Crafters will find it.

The Solution: After finding the $374 price a little more acceptable, I proceeded to call the chinese optical shop I usually deal with. They confirmed that since the lenses are extremely curved, they cannot produce an in-house lens that fits that shape, meaning official Oakley lenses was the only way to go. Surprise surprise, the price she quoted was even lower than the promenade Lens Crafters, she quoted me…. get ready… $250!!
(while that is still expensive, it is a price that I’m willing to strongly consider)

In short, chinese optical shops ftw. Lens Crafters fail.

I suppose I will follow sadd3j’s format for writing this review. As I recall, the last time I went to Canon/Pantages theatre was to see Wicked, and while the production wasn’t great that night, the theatre was quite comfy and it was still all-round good times. Unlike Wicked, the seats this time were much better, granted we bought them the first day tickets went on sale, so seat selection and dates were not a problem–Sarah and I sat dead centre, front row balcony (AA), so it was a near-perfect view. And as a side bonus, because my glasses prescription is quite up to date, I was able to see things relatively sharp.

The production itself was fairly similar to the original recordings. There wasn’t much deviation on the instrumental side of things (ie: I think it was the second time when we saw it, I’ll Cover You (reprise), the keyboardist put in a few more chords in the chromatic minor opening, this keyboardist didn’t put any extra embellishments. I did pay more attention to the guitarist and bassist this time and noticed they actually changed their guitars midway through songs, which made me wonder what about the songs required changing the whole instrument and not just changing sound patches. Songs like Without You, was particularly excellent because the bass sounded extra smooth and mellow yet the notes were distinct and clear. It made me want to come home and try it out (I’m sure I’ll be disappointed at my own attempts and give up shortly). On the vocalists side of things, the only things I noticed on several occasions was when Roger screamed in (What You Own and Another Day), he would come in at a higher note which almost felt like he was offkey, but then he’d bring it down to the correct register. Not sure if this was a mistake or intentional because I can’t say it was a positive. Overall, no hiccups, no technical issues (re: Mimi’s wireless mic breaking up during the second time we saw it).

For the cast review, I thought of writing all my thoughts down before reviewing what sadd3j had said to see if our findings would be similar or not, but I just lazied out and ended up glancing over the review quickly. I can say my findings are more or less similar.

Mark – Seriously amazing, it was like listening to the original broadway recording (OBR), really couldn’t have asked for more from him. During Seasons of Love, the way he claps and such is very much like from Live from Broadway at the end when they bring out the original cast. I thought that was a nice touch, to see his little mannerisms that make him Mark. its actually him!
Roger – Was he also the original? Either he isn’t and thus explains why it didn’t sound like OBR or it was technical. I think that because of the octive he sings in, being in the same range as the instruments, I found it was hard to hear his voice when the instruments came in hard (Another Day “who do you think you are.. barging in on me and my guitar-those parts were hard to hear as his voice was overpowered by instruments). I kept telling myself that I just need to adjust to him, but I think even by What You Own, it still didn’t feel fully settled.
Collins – He was the same as Live on Broadway, which at first (when I saw Live on Broadway), I thought was not as good as OBR, but I think his voice does grow on you and it was overall very good, he was able to do justice to I’ll Cover You (reprise)
Angel – excellent, no qualms about him
Joanne – Initial impressions was that she wouldn’t live up to OBR, but I think overall not bad, I’d put her on par with Collins and Angel
Mimi – Aside from Mark, Mimi would be my second vote to best voice. The timber of her voice is different from OBR because its not as raspy (maybe that’s what Sam meant by sweeter) but it was still very distinct. She was clear and never overpowered by instruments
Maureen – Again agreed about the piercing-ness, in fact if I didn’t read his review, I’d say the problem with her channel was having too much high end and not enough body to support. This was particularly evident in Take Me or Leave Me, Maureen’s parts weren’t very tolerable because it sounded more like high pitched screams.
Benny – suffice to say that he is no Taye Diggs
Other cast members – the male soloist for Seasons of Love was weak. Voice lacked that presence and command that the song demanded. By comparison, the female soloist was much better than him.

I think one of my goals was to take Sarah to see RENT live at least once to change her negative perception of it and I think this production has now made her to a RENT lover convert.

It’s been quite a long wait for this bag and finally it is here!

It all started a few months ago, in September, when I started to look for a new camera bag that was small enough that I could take around daily, but not too big (and padded) to the point where it’d be cumbersome. For the past few years, my solution has always been outfitting regular bags (gap canvas messenger, timbuk2 classic messenger, and crumpler considerable embarrassment) with domke padded inserts and then using that to carry a camera and lens.

The problem however, is that these bags tend to become large and bulky with the camera+inserts, so I started to look around for a smaller one. The first obvious choice would be a bag similar to Jon’s, Tamrac Velocity 7, which is a great bag, but in the spirit of trying to not have the same everything, I decided to look around some more. While on my Montreal trip with Sarah, we went to L.L.Lozeau and they had a large selection of crumplers. It basically boiled down to the million dollar home (MDH) series, either the 3, 4, or 5 MDH. The 3MDH was so small that the flap could barely close with the 5d2+24-70. The 5MDH was too big with all the stiff padding, and really fat; I didn’t like how it looked like a blatant camera bag. I almost bought the 4MDH, it could fit the 5d2+24-70 mounted and the 35f2 on the side, but that was tight. Furthermore, if the lenses were reversed, they would not all fit in the bag. So instead of buying on impulse, I held off in hopes of finding the perfect bag.

Fast forward to months of boring work, I started to look into domke’s. As I mentioned before, I have a few inserts by them, and they weren’t all that cheap (around $24USD each), for a bit of foam padding; but they were/are very useful. I also liked the fact that their designs aren’t flashy, nor are they commonly seen, which is an extra plus since I really didn’t want to be another guy with a crumpler MDH (they are good bags, don’t get me wrong, just everybody who owns an SLR seems to also have a MDH). I found a few people on flickr who had it, and found a few reviews, and all the comments on forums seem to confirm that THIS was the bag. It wasn’t too big, nor too small, it fit the right amount of equipment, low profile, not fat, so what’s wrong with it? The price, in canada, where Henry’s and Vistek dominate the camera market, this bag sells for $149+tax.. ridiculous! when at B&H it’s $83USD. So with that I decided it was too expensive to buy… until now! thanks to Sarah for buying this bag as my christmas present! This was not really a review, as I just got the bag tonight, so I’ve not taken it out or anything; time will tell whether this is in fact the perfect bag or not. But I am really excited at the bag’s versatility thanks to the velcro dividers. And now without further blabbering, here are the photos! (with a few different setups):

2. close up of the badge

3. 5d2+24-70 mounted, 70-200f2.8is in the bottom compartment

4. 5d2+50f1.4 mounted, 24-70 with an extra divider on top compartment, bottom compartment can hold the 70-200 or a flash+small lens

5. view of the bottom compartment: 24-70 and 35f2

Edit to add: The bag comes with 2x 3-section dividers, I’m currently only using one divider, which is used as a base to form the top and bottom compartments. Once the flap is opened, the bag has two small front pouches that can hold wallet, phone, CFcards, batteries and sorts. The most I was able to fit was 5d2+24-70 mounted, 70-200f2.8is, and 50f1.4. The quality of the strap is excellent, and the strap actually has grippy rubber sewn into the strap to prevent the bag from sliding on the shoulder. It’s little details like these that tell you it’s a well thought out bag, with little flaws.

LINKS: Here are some of the links to the different forums I checked out for reviews of this bag: flickr photo set , japanese review, korean review (this one is my favourite, because they even do a shower test to see test its water resistance =P) and photog-on-the-net review