三月份第二次打敗仗。應該和上星期日一早到西貢然後晚上去看演奏會後未有休息有關。因為擔心星期日遲到，所以星期六整晚都沒有好好睡過，怕起不了床。星期一晚才沒睡幾句鐘，第二天一早便去了跑5公里。跑完步後整天忙著先到火炭後去中環辦一些瑣碎的事情。可能就是在火炭著涼了。昨晚開始發燒。今天在床上休息了大半天後，見窗外天朗氣清，於是把sigma 150mm macro裝上nex-5n，然後往薄扶林水塘行山去。希望吸些新鮮空氣，幫助康復。
本來購入sigma 150mm macro 的主要目的是往花展影花。但是距離花展結束只剩三天，不知有沒有機會去。花展去不成，退而求其次，唯有沿薄扶林水塘拍了些野花。雖然把nex-5n配上sigma 150mm macro後，外形雖有點誇張，卻有姿勢有實際。因為nex-5n沒有機身防震，所以唯有完全依賴sigma 150mm macro的內置防震。今日影的相絕大部分都是用上快門比安全快門要慢許多的，但差不多全部都沒有模糊。sigma的鏡頭防震果然不錯。
自從較早前購入了sigma的70-200後，對副廠鏡頭另眼相看。sony系統的最大問題是鏡頭選擇較canon及nikon要少許多。另外一個問題是鏡頭絕大部分都是繼承自2006年收購的minolta。sony的70-200就是minolta的舊設計。minolta始終較少用家，所以不像canon那樣為用家提供3支不同質素的70-200鏡頭，讓用家以預算及實際需求作選擇。而sony的70-200比sigma的要貴一倍有多。說實話，自己在購買sigma 70-200之前及之後都在sony的陳列室試過不下數次sony的70-200。得出的結論是sigma的自動對焦明顯較sony慢。而且亦沒有焦點控制按鈕，比較不方便。不過sigma亦有其可取之處。就是內置鏡頭防震。sony除了nex系統外，其它的換鏡頭系列都設機身防震，所以nex系列以外的鏡頭都不會內置防震。因此只要把sigma用sony的LA-EA2接環接上nex-5n，自己的nex-5n便多了一支防震的70-200。至於成像方面，以平過原廠一半來說，可以說是物有所值了。最「幸運」的是買過sigma後不久，除了sigma的定價升了外，亦有可信性非常高的傳聞sony會在今年內更新其70-200。對新的sony70-200非常期待。
自已一向偏愛50mm macro，因為除了輕便外，成像非常高。而且因為是微距設計所以沒有相片變形的問題。不過50mm始終較短。但sony除了50mm macro外就只有一只80年代minolta設計的100mm macro。實在買不落手。有過sigma70-200的經驗，上星期終於購入了150mm 1:2.8 APO MACRO DG HSM。同樣是內置防震。上星期天便配上a77往橋咀洲拍攝。今日就配上a900試了幾幅。自己頗滿意這150mm macro。
今天參加了一個由導遊帶領觀賞香港地質公園的旅行團。第一次在香港參加這樣的活動。因為有關地質公園的廣告較早前經常出現，所以當groupon推介以188元參加這個旅行團連海鮮午餐的時候，便不妨購買了。反正已對地質公園產生興趣。今日第一個景點是位於西貢的橋咀洲。九時正由西貢碼頭乘船往橋咀洲去。橋咀洲擁有多種火成岩，包括火山角礫岩、流紋岩、凝灰岩和石英二長岩。連接橋咀洲與橋頭是一條由礫石構成的連島沙洲，因為每當退潮時，便會露出水面，所以行程便把參觀橋咀洲編排在早上的第一站，好讓我們能夠在潮漲前經沙洲前往橋咀洲。導遊一邊帶領我們往橋咀洲方向行，一邊介紹並解釋沿途見到的岩石。其中較特別的是一些形似菠蘿包的岩石。導遊剎有介事千叮萬囑我們記緊小心不要踏在「菠蘿包」上以免破壞它們。令人感慨的是，我相信一個星期天可能有不少於一千人橫過那沙洲。以我們的一團為例，團友有219人。而同一時間，橋咀洲至少有3個一樣規模的團。每團停留在島上不超過一小時。正當我們離開島時，另一首載滿遊客的船已準備泊岸。所以一個早上有五團並不稀奇。很難想像一千個人每一個都小心翼翼避免踐踏或無心破壞地質公園內經歷成千上萬年才形成的岩石。想到這裡不禁佩服京都西芳寺遠於1977年便意識到要保護自然古物便得提高入場門檻的遠見。
量產嘅ev（electric vehicle 即純電動車）係今日嘅香港都唔算係新事物。週不時係街同有充電站嘅停車場都可以見到tesla、leaf同miev嘅蹤影。2010年5月20日係京都平安神宮門外準備起程去位於祇園嘅ひさご（一間雞親子飯專門店）嘅時候，眼前突然出現咗架三菱miev的士。
原本諗住行去祇園，不過未坐過ev，梗係唔會錯過咁難得嘅機會。更神奇嘅係ev嘅司機係位女士！於是我厚住面皮叫另一位司機幫我同架ev同ev嘅司機影番幅合照留念。我都覺得自己好老土，影衰晒香港人。但係當時的確幾興奮。女司機去到八坂神社附近唔識路，於是佢落車捉住位路過嘅人力車伕問路。我乘機落埋車（唔係走佬）請佢介紹下架車嘅充電設備。我仲好無聊將全程拍低咗。
ev充電解釋
上個月係京都亦都見到架leaf的士。不過可能唔係第一次見ev的士，所以無特別感覺。只係覺得香港點解連hybrid的士都無。
早兩年曾經關注過香港連鎖食店點樣處理賣唔去嘅乾淨食物。結果，寫咗封信比南早同佢o的讀者分享咗我從兩大咖啡連鎖店得到嘅回應。最近先知，原來朋友間有屋企人成立咗個食物回收計劃叫「惜食堂」http://www.foodangel.org.hk 。係「惜食堂」網站抄嘅:「惜食堂」從餐飲業、食品製造商和食品批發商中收集所有烹煮過或未經處理的剩餘食物，經一套嚴格的處理程序及質檢，製作成為一個個熱騰騰的飯盒，贈送給有需要人士。
好慚愧，自己見到問題剩係識得寫幾隻字。有鬼用。食唔飽嘅人，可以食咗張報紙頂肚咩？非常佩服「小寶基金」創辦人董愛麗小姐同佢一班義工無私咁為有需要嘅人長期奉獻出佢地寶貴嘅時間同汗水。所以，當我知道佢地肯俾個機會我做佢地今日特別為一班老人家安排嘅愛心宴嘅攝影師嘅時候，我非常開心。因為，that’s the least I can do to contribute to such a worthy cause。如果任何人想支持「惜食堂」，記得去http://www.foodangel.org.hk。
泡綠茶嘅習慣其實停咗一排，因為較早前搬屋時唔小心打爛咗個茶壺蓋。
飲過一輪茶包後，2011年尾再次買茶葉。但係因為無咗嗰茶壺蓋（玉露要用好細嘅茶壼泡），所以買咗比較無咁麻煩泡嘅八十八夜茶葉。寫到e度，因為無咗個包裝同埋唯一本茶書入咗倉，所以要google確認係八十八定係八十八夜。八十八夜應該係啱嘅。不過，有個blog話八十八夜其實係玉露古時嘅名。究竟八十八夜同玉露係咪一樣，有待確認。我只係可以肯定，係同一間鋪頭，八十八夜平一百蚊一包。同埋，八十八夜包裝嘅指示係張茶葉放入普通茶壺後，加入放咗係茶杯內兩分鐘嘅滾水，再等兩分鐘就完成。「制作」比玉露簡單快捷。可能因為有過之前嘅食葉經驗，所以無第一時間再次食葉。每次泡完茶之後，都係掉咗o的茶葉。 2012元旦日中午，飮過綠茶後，望住雪櫃入面包北海道3.6奶，忽然頭頂盞燈膽著咗。奶+茶葉=green tea latte。於是即刻將300ml嘅奶加熱，然後同埋o的泡完嘅茶葉一齊放入部vita-mix。唔使兩分鐘就完成咗我第一杯用真正茶葉做嘅green tea latte。
[flickr-gallery mode="photoset" photoset="72157628846548145"]
顔色無starbucks嘅咁綠，亦都無咁甜。除咗比chai tea latte貴幾蚊之外，比較少飲green tea latte嘅原因係太過甜。加熱後嘅奶啱啱好將茶葉raw嘅腥味中和，剩番淡淡清新嘅獨特味道。DIY green tea latte絶對係我杯茶！
一向都有飲開日本綠茶嘅習慣。唔係沖粉或茶包，係用茶葉泡嗰種。之前比較講究o的，飲玉露。其實完全唔叫得有硏究，只係早幾年買過一本有關日本綠茶嘅台版日本書。本書非常入門，只係介紹唔同嘅種類同點樣飲法。同旅遊書一樣，係香港唔容易搵到較深入o的嘅綠茶書。上網可能仲搵到多o的。跟住本書係prince’s building入面有間專賣綠茶嘅鋪頭買咗泡玉露嘅器具。茶葉就係citysuper買。泡玉露每次其實飲得好少。嗰杯只係大過功夫茶杯小小。每次用6g茶葉泡得好少茶。總覺徙咗o的茶葉。後來同賣茶葉嘅阿姐傾開，佢建議我食咗o的茶葉。仲話咁就最能夠吸收茶葉嘅益處。向來最怕浪費食物嘅我，覺得依個提議都幾啱聽。不妨一試。結果，我真係試過好多次。待續 …
my letter to the editor of south china morning post for today’s edition:
“I wish to share with readers my experiences with unsold yet clean food which could be made available to people in need.
Pret A Manger is known for its donation of unsold sandwiches to charities.
I learned from its website that it is seeking charities to collect food from those shops that currently do not have anyone going to pick it up. Based on my own experience, I assume there is a geographical mismatching problem.
As small as Hong Kong is, those who are in need do not happen to be near the areas of excess. When I volunteered my time at Crossroads for 10 months in 2007, I would drive to Ma On Shan every Tuesday morning from my home in Causeway Bay to pick up unsold pastries and breads from La Rose Noire bakery and deliver them to the Crossroads Foundation in Tuen Mun as part of a lunch for volunteers like me. There were two bread-runs a week then and the other one was performed by a full-time volunteer every Thursday.
You see Starbucks and Pacific Coffee outlets all over Hong Kong. They serve drinks and food and much of the food is pre-packed just like at Pret A Manger.
Nowadays, companies are expected to be environmentally-friendly and socially responsible. I was, therefore, interested to hear a Pacific Coffee barista complaining to a customer about the extra work involved in ensuring that all unsold foods was disposed of at the end of each day. So I e-mailed Starbucks and Pacific Coffee to inquire about their unsold food policy.
While Starbucks replied within a day, Pacific Coffee did not get back to me. Starbucks said it had to get rid of the food after it had passed its shelf life for “hygiene and safety reasons”, which I think is fair enough. I am assuming it has exhausted all other responsible solutions.
Thousands of people in Hong Kong are, on a daily basis, either deprived of basic food supplies or need supplementary food in order to get a full meal. It seems to me Hong Kong does not lack willing givers but lacks centralised efforts to co-ordinate the flow from the point of excess to where it is needed. “
I was pleasantly surprised when greeted by a pair of non-disposable chopsticks during my first visit in 2009 to my favourite kaiten sushi restaurant in Causeway Bay. I have been bringing my own chopsticks since, ashamedly, only a few months ago when I finally heeded the warnings about how demands for disposable chopsticks are accelerating deforestation which in turn worsens global warming.
A few days later I visited for the first time a newly opened salad place in Central. While at checkout, the cashier explained to me how they encourage customers to purchase and re-use their own bowls by offering 2 free toppings to returning customers with their own bowls. They all sounded “green” enough to me, especially when my bowl was actually given to me for free under their opening promotion, until my order for a soup was handed to me in a disposable plastic container. Then, as if the container wasn’t counterintutive enough, she offered me disposable utensils and a plastic bag to carry my food upstairs as I had chosen to dine in. I kindly declined both because I happened to have brought my own of both. This shop touts its root from New York. Since its Hong Kong website has only contact information, I visited the chain’s New York website and found the concept of “re-usable” bowls is indeed a very big deal to them because it is about “making environmentally conscious decisions”. Whilst I have never visited any of their New York establishments, my own experience at their Central shop is more like helping them to save costs in cleaning bowls than helping the environment.
Eating with my own utensils
But we don’t have to look far to see socially responsible companies making “true” environmentally conscious decisions. The same company in Hong Kong that operates the sushi restaurant above also operates a chain of coffee shop, also imported from the US, in Hong Kong. A shop near my office has been storing a tumbler I bought from them for almost 2 years. Every time I fill up my tumbler, they take HK$3 off my bill. Did I mention they also wash my tumbler for free?
My tumbler
To quote Nobel laureate Al Gore, “The climate crisis presents us with an inconvenient truth. It means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives.” I don’t mind the inconvenience of carrying my own bag and eating utensils but I do mind carrying a bowl for a company that does not truly practise “making environmentally conscious decisions”.
An edited version of the above appeared as “Environmentally conscious’ claims sometimes miss the mark” in the “Letters to the Editor” section of South China Morning Post today. The salad bar in Central is Just Salad. The coffee chain is Starbucks. The kaiten sushi chain is sen-ryo 千両. Both Starbucks and sen-ryo in Hong Kong are operated by Maxim’s.
A lot of people have expressed their concerns for Tommy the last couple of days. I visited Tommy for the first time this Wednesday, (29/8) since she had been transferred from the hospital to a warehouse where Mary and other caretakers have rented for sheltering of stray cats who are not fit to live on the streets. I visited her again last night. She is recuperating but still very lethargic and doesn’t have appetite for food. They are drip feeding her nowadays. But, as you can see from the videos I just uploaded to YouTube, Tommy has made a lot of improvements since my first visit.
Visit on 29th August, 2007:
Visit on 31st August, 2007:
Thank you once again for all of your kind thoughts.
Tags: stray cats, street animals, pet, cat, kitten, rescue, neuter, euthanize, abandoned, volunteer, help, hong kong, abuse, china, 貓隻領域護理計劃, 愛護動物協會, 義工, 流浪貓
Powered by Qumana