tgh

Definitely an Argus. The photo isn't clear enough to tell if the cocking lever on the front is chrome and the shutter button is the larger style (ironically in this case) called the Mushroom type, or if the lever is black and the shutter button is the stove pipe type. So it could be a pre-war C2 or a post-war C3. The truck shown in the clip of the parade looks like a 1950 GMC. In 1939 an Argus C2 was list priced at $23.00, which would be $510.33 today, adjusted for inflation. In 1951 an Argus C3 with flash was list priced at $69.50 which adjusts to $824.42 today. Compared to a luxury model like a comparable vintage Leica IIIc or Leica IIIf, their functions would be similar. Both had rangefinders in separate windows, both had knob film advance and rewind, both had manual focusing, aperture and shutter settings. Neither had exposure meters. Both the C3 and IIIf had provisions for flash. The Argus was much simpler to load with film, but did have the extra step of tensioning the shutter. Among the people who were carrying cameras there that day, it's very likely most were box cameras of some type. So an Argus C3 would have been quite a step above average.

This is the entire camera, not just a film holder. It's closed with the bellows and lens folded inside the bed. From what's visible, I'd guess it to be a made-by-Kodak Vest Pocket Hawkeye from the late 1920s - early 1930s. The frame window in the middle of the back would be consistent with that of #127 film which that camera used. But all reference photos I can find have a round emblem on the back saying Use 127 film. But this could be a very early or very late one in the production run. It would have made 1 5/8 x 2 1/2 inch negatives and it looks like there might still be film in the camera.

"but I don't know of any 6x6 fixed focus cameras. " Herco Imperial and Beacon 225 are two that come to mind and both would have been available in 1955. If you ever have a chance to see the negatives their orientation on the film would help narrow possibilities down. Some cameras, like the Herco, spooled film through the camera vertically. Others, like the Beacon, spooled film horizontally. If the film was 6x6, I'd suspect it's not a Kodak. I don't think they had any 6x6 eye level viewing cameras that would have been available in 1955. I believe all their 6x6 box cameras at that time were waist level viewing, and their eye level viewing box cameras at that time were 6x9. If the film was 127 and enlarged for these prints, there may have been some eye level viewing 4x4 Kodak cameras in 1955.

Impossible to tell much from prints. If you had the negative you might be able to narrow it down a little. Some models had distinctive edge patterns. Only thing from the prints is, given the perspective, unless the photographer was really tall or standing on a box, the camera was probably an eye level model rather than a waist level viewing type.

Not often mentioned in reviews of Argus cameras is the extremely close focusing ability of a few very early ones. The original A had a two position, collapsible lens. One position for 6 feet, the other for infinity. The AF, introduced a year after the A, had a full, scale focusing ring on its collapsible lens. Focus ranged from infinity to 1.25 feet (measured from the front of the camera body). So that'd be 16 inches from the film plane. Few SLR lenses focused quite that close, even 30 years later. The more futuristic styled Argus A3 from about 1940 had this same 1.25 feet to infinity focusing range. But my favorite model from the Argus family is the Argus 21 Markfinder. Introduced about 1948 (mine dates to 1949) it had a screw mount, non-collapsible 50/3.5 triplet lens that focused down to an unmarked 2.1 feet. Not sure if that's where the model name came from. But the real bonus is the viewfinder which is, I believe, the first 35mm camera with a floating frame, several years before the Leica M3 was introduced. The viewfinder was huge compared to all other 35mm cameras of that day. Barnack Leicas and Kodak Retinas had pretty squinty viewfinders by comparison. But Argus never managed to combine the frames with an actual rangefinder. The 21's viewfinder, besides the frames around the edge, has only a + in the middle.

If the vintage ads at this site Vintage Photography/ Camera Ads of the 1920s are an indication, the beginning of the change to advertising targeted primarily to men happened in the 1930s. During the 1910s and 1920s, a large majority of the ads, for Kodak at least, appear to have been directed mainly at women. It's as if amateur photography was thought of as a sentimental activity, best suited to women. Men were more likely to be interested in more "manly" things. This did hold true for my family. All of my grandparents came of age in the 1920s. Neither of my grandfathers ever owned, and with very rare exceptions, ever used a camera. All family photos were made by my grandmothers.

The frame counter on Retina IIa models counts down. When it reaches 0, it locks the film advance. Just turn the counter dial to something other than 0 or 1. Or pressing and holding the reset button (the peg like button on top, beside the film advance) should release it. This button also allows you to advance the film to the first frame when loading film without having to trip the shutter. I have two Retina IIa's. I also have a love/hate attitude towards folders. This model was made between 1951 and 1954. Judging by how many seem to come up for sale, and most are still in working order, they must have sold in large numbers and have been well designed and well made. The biggest issue I have with mine is they seem to both make lower contrast negatives than similar vintage cameras, such as a Voigtlander Vito II. I'm not sure if that's a result of 65+ years of age on the lenses, acquiring a hint of haze, or something in the optical design. I've always suspected an F2 maximum aperture was at or beyond what a four element lens could really handle.

I used to have a Konica S2, and still have an OM1. I've used both a 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 OM lens with it. In practice I found any image quality differences to be negligible between photos made with the Konica 45/1.8 and the OM 50/1.8. I still have my OM, but sold my S2 long ago because: a) Except for being a bit thicker back to front, the OM body is slightly smaller than the S2. b) The OM body and its controls are more ergonomic to my preference. c) The OM has a faster top shutter speed. d) The OM 50/1.8 lens focuses closer than the lens on the S2. Substitute "Pentax Spotmatic & 55/2 lens" for "OM1 & 50/1.8 lens" and the same four things all apply. But I do find photos made the 55/2 Takumar to be generally as sharp or sharper than anything I ever made with the S2. Though the Konica was a decent and capable camera, I don't regret selling it and keeping the others. YMMV.

There were two versions of the 50/1.8 breech mount lens. Yours appears to be the earlier type, which is physically longer than the later version. And yours also probably has a lock lever on the back with two positions, one a red L and the other a white dot. Make sure this is at the white dot so the larger of the two levers can move freely. If it doesn't have this locking lever, then make sure the larger lever (with the angular base) is all the way to the left in its slot before you mount the lens. You can then confirm whether the aperture is stopping down or not by mounting the lens on the camera, moving the aperture off the A setting, advancing the film wind lever and pressing the depth of field slide on the front of the camera towards the lens mount. But you must advance the film wind lever. If you don't, the lens can only stop down no more than the aperture used when the shutter was last tripped.

<p>Generic representation is probably correct. Or hybrid model. I see elements of several. The centered viewfinder and top shutter release looks like a Kodak Retina Ia. And the rectangular finder suggests its clearly not a square format. The rounded ends under his fingers looks like an Edinex. And the lens front looks like a Leitz Summitar. But then the whole thing looks vaguely like a Kodak Pony. Except the absence of any obvious advance or rewind knobs leaves the question had the LGM's already gone digital?</p>

<p>Consider looking for a really cheap, third party, way-off brand 28 mm lens, then mount it on an equally cheap, off brand 2x teleconverter. The 2x would magnify the shortcomings of the lens, and you'd also have a 56mm lens that could probably be focused down to 1 ft for crappy closeups.<br> It might not be a super cheap setup, costwise, but I think it could certainly meet your thresh hold for crappy image quality.</p>

<p>Thanks Marc, I too really enjoy these glimpses back to just a few years before I first picked up a camera. But sometimes I'm left a little puzzled. The SLR round up is an example. I have a Nikon F with serial number that dates it as made between May and July 1966. But the shutter on mine certainly doesn't appear to be "cloth covered" metal.</p>

<p>Agfa Optima Ia. The model name would have been on the missing the ring around the lens with focusing indicators. I'm not familiar with this camera, and the instructions for this model from the Butkus don't get into very detailed information on the B mode, but my suspicion is it's still in at least partial auto mode in B, giving a smaller aperture when the light meter senses a brighter scene to minimize possible overexposure. It was intended to be a near "fool proof" camera.</p>

<p>Appears same as this one:<br> http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Franka-Werke/Solida-(1953).html</p>

<p>Fascinating series, thanks for posting Marc. I can't imagine more recent photo magazines publishing such a detailed listing of discontinued cameras. And quite a change in the relative used market value of things. In 1960 a 10 year old Argus 21 was worth about the same as a 30 year old Leica I, $18-$27 for the Argus and $18-$30 for the Leica. But a recently discontinued Kodak Signet 30 was worth $25-$33.<br> I've got an Argus 21, if anyone wants to trade their Leica I even up for it!</p>