I bought one for the video. I couldn't see anything other than broadcast tv
until I bought my own wavecom video transmitter.

And even then, the R3 only picked it up whenI was in the same small room as the
transmitter. Couldn't even pick it up 3 feet away.

while the Wavecom reciever picked it up rooms away.

But I don't think the R3 is totally bad. It is bad for what it was marketed as.

But I think it was mis-marketed. It seems to be okay as a regular scanner on
the old frequencies, VHF-LO, VHF-hi, VHF-air, and UHF. and some others.

It does have a lot of birdies, though, unfortunately.

But the botttom line is that if you're getting it for just the video (like I
did), you're probably much better off buying a wavecom video transmitter and
wavecom video reciever.

While th wavecoms don't scan, and are limited to four channels, you're bound to
see something on that more than you would on the R3.

I haven't seen anything on the wavecom frequencies in my area other than my own
wavecom transmitter when I turned it on, but then again, I live in a
"semi-rural area".

You definitely get better reception with the wavecom video recievers than you
do with the IC-R3.

go for the wavecom instead, in my opinion.

at least for video.

While th wavecoms don't scan, and are limited to four channels, you're bound
to
see something on that more than you would on the R3.


something I forgot to point out in my previous posts. The R3 does NOT scan
either, when in video mode. (tv mode with screen on).

I should have said "although the R3 has more frequencies than the wavecom,
you're bound to see more with the limited 4 channels on the wavecom, since the
wavecom gets much better 2.4 GHZ reception than the R3 does.