In Praise of the C-Forty-Four

<p>Some cameras come with a fairly mediocre reputation. The Argus C-Forty-Four seems to be one of them.</p><div></div>

<p>It's unusual to find a review that praises this little rangefinder, but perhaps I'll redress the balance. They're a fairly rare camera where I live, and when this copy came up for auction I entered into a minor bidding war, probably paying just a little to much. But it all works well, and it's as tidy as one could hope for, with a beautiful "California Saddle Leather" case and a perfectly clear lens. The C44 was produced for a short period during 1956-7 and was followed by the "improved" C44R, which re-styled the top deck to include a recessed rewind knob with fold-out plastic crank, and a rapid wind film lever, also in gleaming plastic. I'm sure I prefer this model... though the 44R did have provision for a coupled exposure meter. Production of the "R" continued until 1962, and that was the end of a long line of rangefinders manufactured in Ann Arbor, Michigan, by the Argus Camera Company of Canada, Ltd.</p><div></div>

<p>The C-44 is a continuation of a long line of Argus rangefinders of similar pattern, and the first with interchangeable lenses. The preceding model, the C4, was successfully customised by the Geiss Company of Chicago which provided after-market modification and a range of quality lenses. In response, Argus brought out the C-44 with a three-lens range of 35/4.5, 50/2.8 and 100/3.5, the standard lens being this 50mm Cintagon f/2.8 which was apparently designed and manufactured in Michigan, with the aid of the new-fangled University of Michigan's "mainframe computer". The other lenses were made in Germany by the Steinheil company and there was a designated viewfinder which nested in the accessory shoe. There seems to have been an additional lens, a 50mm f/1.9, but these are apparently very rare and information regarding them is scarce. The lenses all had this singular fluted exterior design which is very 50's Americana, with hint of the glamour of the jet fighter era; I have a sneaking affection for the appearance of the C44, mainly because I find it reminiscent of much of the design that surrounded me in my mis-spent youth. The 50mm Cintagon f/2.8-22 performs very well indeed; it has the reputation of being a very sharp lens and my experiences support this. A 4-element design, the front element is deeply recessed to keep flare to a minimum, and it's colour rendition is excellent. </p><div></div>

<p>The lensmount has suffered torrents of criticism. It seems that once some part of a camera gets bad press, all the armchair "reviewers and critics" leap on their "expert" bandwagons and emphasise the point, ad nauseum. While the Argus lensmount is a little trickier than some, I find it no worse than, say, a Canon FD mount, and so long as one follows the procedure it's no problem at all. To remove, set everything to infinity, trip the release latch below the lens and revolve the lens 90 degrees anti-clockwise, and off she comes. To replace, line up the red dots on lens and mount, seat the lens, revolve 90 degrees clockwise and it clicks nicely into place. Likewise, the shutter has been compared to the sound of a rat-trap going off, scaring the birds from the trees. Arrant nonsense; it's not as quiet as a Prontor or Compur, but it's way quieter than any focal plane shutter I own, and on a par with several other leaf shutters.<br /><br />The camera has the usual Argus rangefinder/focus system coupled to the milled wheel on the front, a limited range of shutter speeds consisting of 1/10, 1/25, 1/50, 1/100 and 1/300 plus B, a film wind/shutter cock knob that seems to rotate forever, and an overall feel of great solidarity. It's a well-built camera, but it has the quirky finish typical of many American cameras, the accessory shoe being particularly ill-finished. In the pic above, the clunky round-headed screws would have been unacceptable to any European manufacturer. The interior is neat and tidy, practical and solid, with a removable bottom/back for film loading. Note the unique M/X flash selector situated below the hot shoe.</p><div></div>

<p>I enjoyed using the C44. The rangefinder/focus mechanism on this copy should really be taken apart and re-greased as it's a little stiff for a finger tip to rotate comfortably, but the rangefinder is bright and accurate, the viewfinder adequate and the shutter release very smooth. The "Focal" film was rather an unknown quantity, having been discovered in the back of a 'fridge when shifting house, but the very saturated colour and the "Made in Germany" tag suggests it's a late '90's Agfa stock. I hope you find a few images to like.</p><div></div>

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

<p>No.4</p>

<div></div>

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

<p>No.9</p><div></div>

<p>No.10</p><div></div>

Great shots, Rick. And nice-looking camera. You're fortunate that the Focal film is Agfa stock as it keeps well. Most of

Focal film in the USA was 3M. Thanks for posting.

Very nice example of a very cool camera! I too see what you mean about the screws in the flash shoe and the 50s look that I too adore! I would very much like one of these but a rare bird in Europe too! Your example seems to perform impeccably! I love the house "Texture" you have such an eye for what pictures work best in B&W Mustang is great too! In your capable hands indeed!

<p>"The rangefinder/focus mechanism on this copy should really be taken apart and re-greased as it's a little stiff for a finger tip to rotate comfortably"</p>

<p>Amen to that. Mine was the same and I eventually off'd it as the lens was nothing to write home about.</p>

<p>Great write up as usual Rick, brightens up a cloudy morning here. The Argus cameras are indeed a bit scarce here in the Antipodes, took me an age to find a C4 Brick that worked. Never seen one like yours, but the brick, although very solid, gives nothing to egonomics!<br>

One day I must find out why Americans are so fond of slotted srews, maybe something to do with driving on the wrong side of the road!<br>

Oh, and the world cup....we look forward to a Australia/ New Zealand final of course.</p>

<p>Nice writeup, Rick.</p>

<p>I'm curious, and it's rude to ask, but how much did you pay? Email privately, if you'd rather - though if you're not in the US I guess the number would be meaningless anyway. I just saw the very same camera at a local estate sale outside Detroit, not far from where the Argus was built. I tried the controls, everything worked really well, and the camera was like new. They were asking $30, but I passed because I hadn't researched that model, and had no idea of a fair price. Plus I have a pretty healthy CMC collection already... But I remember where it was, and may go back tomorrow and offer $10 for it.</p>

<p>Had considered doing that even before seeing your post. Now I'm pretty certain I will....</p>

<p>..and I get to drive by the argus building with regularity :)</p>

<p>I toured the Argus building / museum a year or so ago, in the company of Mark O'Brien. Forgive me if I've butchered your name... He's an Argus fan, and was telling me all about various models and history of the company. Quite a history there!</p>

<p>Nice find, Rick. Even though the C44 and its predecessor the C4 looked and sounded clunky<br>

they still work even after sitting on the closet shelf for the last 30 or 40 years. Thanks for<br>

posting.</p>

<p>Who could ask for anything more?</p>

<p>The pictures are really nice, especially with your eye for composition and color. All the same, the two mildly sepia tones sort of grab me here.</p>

<p>I've been thinking about this one; dang, your report does nothing to scare me off. ;(</p>

<p>I don't think the C-44 suffers from a medicore reputation as a picture taker. The lenses are nice, and it's a sturdy camera. I think most people would agree.<br>

If it is mediocre then would have to be on a basis of what the competition was when it was new. The C-44 was not a cheap camera when it was new. For about the same price you could get a Regula IIIc or Minolta V2, or even a cheaper SLR like the Miranda S. All of which beat out the C-44 on features.<br>

Not that any of that matters 50 years later. </p>

<p>Very fine <strong>Rick</strong>, and I agree about the bandwagon-jumping. That's a pet peeve of mine as well. </p>