Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+pictures\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+pictures\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: carlseye@tampabay.rr.com (carl seyersdahl); Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:57:50 -0400; Can anyone suggest a GOOD first digital camera for a novice like me(in computers, not radio ) carl / kz5ca; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00183.html (7,205 bytes)
2. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: vk6apk@eon.net.au (Alek Petkovic); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:38:50 +0800; I don't know about brands but I do know that you should get one with at least 2 Megapixels. More is better but the price goes up. That's the advice I was given a couple of years ago and I've had no r; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00184.html (8,158 bytes)
3. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: Chuck@dxham.net (Chuck Sudds); Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:22:52 -0500; I agree with Alek, Carl. Get one with at least 2.2 megapixels. You won't be sorry. I bought an Olympus 3030 a couple of years ago. It was 3.3 megapixels and I have been 110% happy with it ever since.; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00185.html (7,761 bytes)
4. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:21:24 +0100; A few years ago I bought an Olympus SLR with 1.4Mpix. I was recommended to the model by a camera enthusiast friend who pointed out that it had excellent optics. If that part is no good, all the digit; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00189.html (7,911 bytes)
5. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: Ian White, G3SEK" <g3sek@ifwtech.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:33:44 +0100; Digital cameras are like computers - obsolete before you even buy them. You just have to learn not to worry about it. When we were buying a camera, about a year ago, there were several excellent in-d; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00192.html (11,415 bytes)
6. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:02:50 +0000; Don't know if things have changed in the time since I got mine, but heavy use of the built in display wipes the batteries very quickly - I suspect that's why a lot of the other users commented on lik; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00193.html (7,852 bytes)
7. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: kayser@sympatico.ca (Larry Kayser); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 07:16:13 -0400; Gentlemen: Thank you for the thoughtful and refreshing discussion about digital cameras. Questions I had not thought of have been answered, a great side discussion and much appreciated. Larry VA3LK; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00194.html (7,690 bytes)
8. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: Ian White, G3SEK" <g3sek@ifwtech.co.uk (Ian White, G3SEK); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:50:35 +0100; Yes, that's true - but you pay heavily for the SLR feature. In digital cameras, SLR tends to be associated with a range of other 'professional' features which kick the whole camera up into a much hig; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00196.html (8,440 bytes)
9. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:08:41 -0400; Another important issue with digitals is the time required between pictures; I love my Olympus D-460, but the time from pressing the shutter release till the picture is taken, and particularly the ti; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00197.html (7,902 bytes)
10. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: w9ac@arrl.net (Paul Christensen); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:31:06 -0400; And don't fall into the trap of purchasing for "more megapixels" alone. Resolution quality for both distant and near-field objects is also largely dependant on the lens quality. From the barrage of a; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00198.html (10,037 bytes)
11. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: Michael Walker" <va3mw@rogers.com (Michael Walker); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:40:39 -0400; OK, I know this is way way off topic, but I have to respond. I've used dozens, but I ultimately ended up with a Nikon D1 Professional unit (body only approx $2500 US Used), but it shots as fast as I; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00202.html (10,547 bytes)
12. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: tongaloa@alltel.net (tongaloa); Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:00:37 -0400; I would recommend the Canon S200 for a first digital $350 incl 128 meg CF card It's rugged, has automatic lens cover, metal case, fits in the shirt or pants pocket comfortable (no matter what you end; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00203.html (8,418 bytes)
13. [Amps] pictures (score: 1): Author: k7fm@teleport.com (COLIN LAMB); Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 5:34:14 -0700; If you are not in a hurry, you can take high resolution photographs with the old standard 35 mm SLR camera, using macro lenses and high quality interchangeable lenses. Then, when you have the film pr; /archives//html/Amps/2002-08/msg00212.html (8,085 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Pictures (score: 1): Author: gjerning@flash.net (Arne Gjerning); Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 09:09:35 -0700; --CCE44F3299F06B6D58AFBAF8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received pictures OK. I am disappointed. NO RADIO PARTS LAYING AROUND. Ha Ha. Think you said the; /archives//html/Amps/1999-12/msg00117.html (9,137 bytes)
15. [Amps] Pictures (score: 1): Author: "Jim W7RY" <w7ry@arrl.net>; Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:54:42 -0800; There was a DX station that was interested in my homebrew 8877 project that is patterned after the K8RA 3CX1500D7 ARRL Handbook amplifier. I have changed computers and don't have the info. Please con; /archives//html/Amps/2009-01/msg00018.html (6,707 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]