The Iconic American

<p>According to the sources, my copy of the Argus Standard C3, bearing the serial number 1921259876, was manufactured in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the first quarter of the year 1958. As the production run extended from 1939 to 1966, one would have to call mine a "late model".</p><div></div>

<p>I'm not going to go into great lengths to describe the Argus C3 and it's history, as I know that it's a perennial favourite among the members of this forum. I hope you will respond with your recollections, and accounts of your experiences with this iconic camera. Love it or hate it, "The Brick" is part of American culture to an extent that no other camera has achieved, and is accredited with introducing and establishing the use of 35mm film among US consumers. Given the extremely long production run of around two and a half decades, I can well believe that many US citizens of my advancing years have handled an example at some stage in their life. Apparently the "technical" appearance, with all the various wheels and knobs, held a strong appeal for the American consumer.<br /> <br>

To me, it's a child of US design of the era spanning 1940-60; solid in the same way that a Sherman tank was solid, basic mechanical solutions built strongly but with little sophistication and with scant regard to what we now call "ergonomics". My personal reactions to the camera, having run a couple of films, are overtly negative; I found it a clumsy and poorly-designed piece of apparatus, slow and clumsy to use with numerous pitfalls for the novice user. Just getting the camera open, depressing the spring clip on the side, takes a measure of strength that many would have found challenging. </p><div></div>

<p>The camera has a rangefinder which is linked to the focus wheel mounted on the face of the camera and protruding above the top deck; on this example age has rendered the linkage very stiff, apparently a common problem caused by sticky old grease. The rangefinder, a split-image type , has a separate viewing window beside the viewfinder, not exactly the swiftest of procedures though the rangefinder is bright and accurate. The viewfinder itself is a mere peephole. The shutter has to be cocked by the chrome lever on the face of the camera, and the fingers then kept well clear as the lever returns to the uncocked position as the shutter is released. Unfortunately, a comfortable grip on the camera places one's fingers right in the path of the cocking lever's return. To advance the film, a latch on the top of the camera must be tripped and released as the winder knob is revolved, acting as a double-exposure prevention, but if the camera is packed away prior to winding-on and the latch bumped in the process, it's possible to re-cock the shutter and make an exposure over the previous frame. I did this, several time, alternating with winding on to be sure of fresh film in the gate, and my films ended up with several double-exposures and a couple of blanks. This model has a limited range of shutter speeds ranging from 1/10th to 1/300th, with "B" available as sort of shutter-button lock.</p><div></div>

<p>It's a heavy camera, strongly-built and quite nicely finished, and it does have the capability of accepting a telephoto or wide-angle lens, if one can master the complicated procedure of partial dis-assembly involved. The standard lens is the faithful 50mm Cintar f/3.5 lens with some evidence of coating, and it actually performs very well, with good contrasty colour rendition and reasonable sharpness. Overall, it all seemed to be rather a challenge, and I post a few samples. I'm aware that many great photographs have been taken on an Argus C3, but my samples are not among them. Film was Fuji Superia 200 ISO, scans from the Fuji Frontier.</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>Yep, your criticism matches mine reasonably closely. My only addition is that to service the shutter you have to peel off the leatherette on the front.<br>

<br />I solved the problem of the shutter-tensioning lever catching your fingers by adjusting it so that it points towards the lens. Easy solution. <br>

The rest just takes a bit of routine. <br>

The multiple exposure problem is worse on the older Argus A's where the shutters are of the automatic cocking type. <br>

<br /><br /><br>

No complaints about the lens.</p>

<p>Dammit Rick, even your brick looks good.</p>

<p>Excellent presentation. Thank you.</p>

<p>Great pictures and review as always. I always thought the Argus 35's resembled boxy prototypes? Sort of like they placed everything where it needed to be, without any consideration of style, or ease of functionality? . As you stated they ignored "ergonomics".</p>

<p>The only upside is of course the images they're capable of. But most of their foreign competitors, Contax, Nikon ,Leica had far better optics and quality. But these all cost many times more than the C cameras.</p>

 

<p>The company made Radios, prior to cameras. maybe the design was meant to be a portable radio that was repurposed. The shutter release is where you would have put the antenna.</p>

<p>The company made Radios, prior to cameras. maybe the design was meant to be a portable radio that was repurposed. The shutter release is where you would have put the antenna.</p>

<p>Interesting. I never found the C-3 lovable. Quite the contrary. I was introduced to the C-3 in 1955 or -6 when my father tried to teach me to use his. </p>

<p>It was too large for my little hands, the controls were stiff and the sharp edges on the control wheels cut into my little fingers. Understand that I had large paws for a kid my age, so large that I was told to take up 'cello, not violin, in junior high school. I found my father's C-3 painful to use, am still averse to the things. </p>

<p>I've never understood why it was necessary to have separate windows for rangefinder and viewfinder, found and find the feature obnoxious. This feature, which was nearly universal back then, is one of the reasons that I never warmed to thread-mount Leicas.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that my father loved his C-3. It was rarely in evidence, unlike the Kodak Tourist that he often used.</p>

<p>Rick,<br>

Nice to see a C3 matchmatic in use again. This was my 1st 'real' camera. Quite a step up from a Pocket 110 camera. The C3 is a bit clunky but an OK shooter at f/5.6-8 with a shade. Nice feature of this model ,the lens takes standard Series V filters and shade. Once I learned to work within it's limitations ,my photos improved. Dragged the 'Beast' all over the north woods camping and hiking making some of my fondest memories.<br>

Chris<br>

PS It sits on my bookcase where I can pick it up and trip the shutter and remember.<br>

C</p>

<p >Super pictures Rick, thanks for posting, and as always your image of the camera itself is something of a work of art.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The "Brick" isn't as common in England as I guess it is in the States. Some years ago I bought one for a few pounds at a car boot sale, together with its huge ever ready case with the padded out ends. Sadly I never got around to putting a film through it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Back then my son was a member of the local Basketball academy and I used to have a couple of hours to kill after dropping him off there. One day I was wandering round the nearby streets when I saw a small Chemist's shop, with some old cameras for sale in the window. It turned out that the owner, Terry Mattock, was a keen photographer and I bought a few things from him. I eventually asked him to sell some of my own surplus kit, and was amazed by his knowledge, he didn't just know the cameras, he knew everything about them, even the most obscure. I felt honoured when he once described me as a "fellow enthusiast". He was that sort of old fashioned guy - the shop had been founded by his parents, and he was born in the flat above.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >One day I took him the Argus C3 to sell, and he immediately offered to buy it for himself, as it had been his own first camera. A while after that he was taken ill, and some time later I was sad to hear that he had died. But I was glad that I'd been able to re-unite him with his first camera.</p>

<p>Despite the camera, for which the term "non-ergonomic" was probably invented, your eye for color makes the results worth viewing.<br>

The C3 and its stable mates probably did as much to make 35mm slides what they became as did cameras that are much more highly respected as "classics".</p>

<p>Excellent to see some pictures from the Brick, I have never been game to use mine! Actually had it out yesterday, and the thing has a sort of Buick quality about it, but the ergonomics...well lets say that I will never criticize the Exacktas again!<br>

Your pictures are really good as usual, and I can almost taste those broad beans!</p>

<p>Calling the C3 an "iconic American" makes me think of the old criticism of American tourists abroad as "ugly Americans". I've always thought the C3 is an exceedingly unattractive camera. It takes "form follows function" to an extreme and conjoins it with tone-deaf visual aesthetics. I've never doubted that it was capable of taking good pictures (as you demonstrate; I particularly like "Harvest"), and it certainly earned its place in history, but the industrial designer responsible for its outward appearance should have been prosecuted. It looks like some sort of homebrew project, as if someone took a small metal box, perhaps originally used for cigarettes or breath mints, and mounted a shutter inside it and a lens and some dials on the outside.</p>

<p>The Speed Graphic was not particularly beautiful either, but-------</p>