The cameras in 'Carol'

<p>I hope this doesn't count as off-topic: these are just nerd questions really. Can anyone identify the two cameras in 'Carol' (the movie)? The first is one of these fantastic-but-horrid US very-square cameras (I'm in the UK so I'm not really used to these), and the second (the one Therese is bought) is a Leica III-something, but I couldn't work out what the something was, or what the lens was (not anything collapsible I think).</p>

<p>Definitely off-topic: does anyone know how it was filmed? I'd assumed it was digital with some nice processing, but I read something which implied it was 16mm film. The image quality was really nice to look at: I found myself occasionally just looking at the texture of it which was really nice in the way small-format film grain often is.</p>

<p>Apologies if these are off-topic (and despite appearances I'm not trying to advertise the film!)</p>

<p>The first is an Argus C3 35mm rangefinder, very appropriately nicknamed "The Brick", and made over a long period and in huge numbers in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As a fellow UK resident I'm a little reluctant to say too much about an American camera, so hopefully some of the many US based photo.net members will wish to comment. Be aware that the Brick is generally better regarded across the pond, perhaps for nostalgic rather than strictly photographic reasons.</p>

<p>My father had a C3, which was my introduction to 35mm photography. It was a pain to use, but the Cintar lens, although slow, did a yeoman's job, for which I am thankful, as I have Kodachrome slides from the late 1930s and early 1940s of my father, grandfather hunting, fishing and during WWII, and even myself...which I can easily put up against almost any other 35mm film camera's results. Just that the beast seemed to weigh a ton, wasn't ergonomic, the viewfinder was squinty, and the focusing wheel seemed hard to adjust. When I eventually inherited it, I tried it out, still hated it as much as ever (having been a Leica user for many years), used it as a bookend, until I realized that there was a market for retro cameras and readily sold it. It was a good everyman's camera for the times with a good lens when 35mm photography was moving into the households of many in the USA.</p>

<p>According to Wikipedia, Carol was shot on Super 16. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_(film">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_(film</a>) If you want a detailed technical account, American Cinematographer magazine usually has a story on just about eveyr major film that comes along.<br /><br />As for the Argus C3, I don't have one but I do have a very similar C4. Both were popular in their day, especially the C3, but definitely a clunky "brick" not to be confused with the elegant Leica. Much cheaper, however, and capable of taking good pictures in the hands of a good photographer.</p>

<p>Craig's link is truncated. It should be<br /> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_(film)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_(film)</a></p>

<p>- Henry</p>

<p>Cheap, and great in a bar fight.</p>

<p>The C3 was my first 35mm camera. Astonishing shots with Pan-X film souped in Microdol...</p>

<p>I bought another one early this year at a junk shop. Shutter action is still sharp--but plan on doing a bit of CLA on it and the rangefinder optics. Clunky, yes. Fun, oh yeah....!</p>

<p>Just in case: I wasn't meaning to be rude about the C3! They do look fantastic!</p>

<p>As far as I know, most any discussion of older manual cameras is on-topic here. This seems fine to me.</p>

<p>More usual is someone buys a camera, posts some pictures of it, and pictures taken with it, but other discussion is fine, too. Movie cameras don't come up very often, though.</p>

<p>The Leica IIIc and IIIf are the ones you usually see.</p>

<p>I don't think I could tell the difference from far away.</p>

<p>So a C3 or a Zenit each recommended in a bar fight? One could claim as defense that violence was not intended beforehand; after all, why would you want to hit someone with your camera?</p>

 

<p>The judge would probably want to hear the witnesses in camera...</p>

<p>James asked:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...after all, why would you want to hit someone with your camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I found myself in The Tenderloin in San Francisco last week and I did think about which corner of my 5DsR I would use to knock someone out, if needed.</p>

<p>I saw a trailer for the film .. I'm a sucker for anything retro ... go figure. I haven'T seen the film but I'm pleased to see it was shot in 16mm. So even I saw the clip wit hthe Argus... but I missed the Leica clip. So A II seems to be the opinion Glenn mentioned from a distance it was hard to tell the variations apart. I'm sure I couldn'T otehr than say it was a older TM model vs an M model. So I do want to see the film now if for no other reason as to see the cameras! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just purchased one a short while ago. Just had tom have one. It is a brick.<br /> I looked up previous threads on this and someone dared to suggest that it was an "American Leica". I am not going to comment on that.<br /> Retina Reflex is a good weapon but don't count on using it afterward.</p><div></div>

<p>Test shot at the local Volvo mothball fleet.</p>

<p>Again</p><div></div>

<p>...after all, why would you want to hit someone with your camera?</p>

<p>After reading some of the contentious threads on PN, you may want to rethink that question.</p>

<p><em>...after all, why would you want to hit someone with your camera?</em><br>

<em>After reading some of the contentious threads on PN, you may want to rethink that question.</em><br>

That was a defense ploy only. You are clearly right; I yield.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies!</p>

<p>I should obviously have been smart enough to check Wikipedia to realise it was made on Super 16: I think I was derailed by the credits which mentioned Arri, who I think now (of course) make digital movie cameras but also (of course) made / make film movie cameras.</p>

<p>On interesting thing is to watch my own reaction to things like this: I'm fairly sure that 20, or even 10 years ago I would have looked at this and thought 'oh, shot on something less than 35mm and grainy as a result', while now I have seen so many 'perfect' digital or heavily digitally-processed movies that my reaction is 'oh, a movie with texture in the frame, how lovely'. The same is true for still photography I think: at some point (before film was displaced by digital I think) I went to an exhibition of 35mm photography and suddenly realised that <em>the grain (texture of the image really) is the point</em>.</p>

<p>"Retina Reflex is a good weapon but don't count on using it afterward."</p>

<p>Or before.</p>

<p>They did have their problems but just took this yesterday</p>

<p>Hate when computer freezez</p><div></div>

<p>Tn addition to the Argus, the Christmas gift to Therese from Carol was a Canon rangefinder, a III probably from the year the movie takes place. Here's <a href="https://medium.com/vantage/carol-ba14bd0ffa5f#.vmfqluctk">a piece on the movie, quoting heavily from Ed Lachman, the Director of Photography</a>, about the look he was after, the inspiration for it (American photographers like Levitt, Orkin, and Leiter), and why he shot on Super16.<br /><br /></p>