Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Double Down Invades Arteries of Canadians

The nation should be a little fatter by now as KFC's Double Down climbed up to the colder side of the border from the state side yesterday. Fortunately for our hearts, this load of fat and awesomeness is only here for a limited time.

I have tried eating it myself and it really seems like I'm eating something out of a cartoon. Having to replace both buns with, well, two (2!) fried chicken breasts really makes the whole thing greasy. So greasy, its almost guaranteed more napkins will be used compared to eating a regular sandwich or burger due to the fact everything that comes in contact with the Double Down will automatically be marinated with grease. Having no bread also doesn't help you soak up all the grease, or rather, it just lets you soak up all the grease. The weak-stomached will simply feel like throwing up at this point. The lack of any fibre also lets you taste all the sodium head on! All the cheese and the bacon in the middle simply lets you taste all that saltiness it is advised you should have a beverage with you as you will get thirsty very quickly. It also tastes like a heart attack, in your mouth.

As I was having one for lunch, I was staring at the "cooked-in-trans-fat-free-canola-oil" sign in an attempt to try to make myself feel better.

It didn't really work.

The funny part is, it's got less calories than the Burger King's Whopper! The Double Down contains 540 Calories with 30 grams of fat while the Whopper has 660 calories with 40 grams of fat. While this absolutely doesn't means jack, it's also an interesting find. If you're prepared to taste what heart attack really tastes like, at least do it with some diet coke 'cause that stuff helps! just have some green tea with it.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Yet Another Film Camera

"I swear, this is the last film camera I'll buy. No more fooling around like some collector." That is what I keep telling myself and it doesn't really seem to be working.

So enter the Minolta XG-A: now another part of my "sin of indulging."

I picked this little guy up about a week ago, and am quite happy with it. I've wasted used up a few rolls of film at Nuit Blanche that took place over the weekend and I've gotta say, this one is a keeper. Due to the lack of having a good scanner, I don't have any of the shots I took with the Minolta XG-A in digital form. There are simply negatives and prints, which I am more than happy with (for the most part).

So far, I picked up only one lens for it and see no reason to pick up another one (and I hope it stays that way for a while). The 50mm f/1.7 offers me plenty of versatility, low-light capability being one them. While it is not a zoom lens, I have a pair of perfectly fine legs that can "zoom" for me. The lack of zoom is really a fair price to pay for the sharpness in the lens you get in return.

I suppose the major reason why I'm going to be using this (for fun) is the viewfinder size. It's an actual viewfinder of a traditional SLR, what's not to like? I did a quick comparison with a Canon 5d Mk. II's viewfinder and almost lost a heartbeat due to the gap of difference between the two. For a second, I even thought I was comparing the viewfinder to a Canon 7D until my colleague stated otherwise. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I can't believe I was missing out on all this (analogue) fun for so long!