argus a-four, 1953-1956

[JDMvW]

<p><strong>Argus 1953-56 plastic body</strong><br /><br />Other link for the camera at http://jimgrey.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/argus-a-four/<br /><br />I had recently read a post here on the Argus A series. A camera that played an important part in the acceptance of the new Kodachrome color film in the thirties and 35mm photography in general. A nice historical treatment of how this happened is available at http://theargusa.com/History.htm and also at http://www.retrothing.com/2009/10/argus_35mm-cameras.html . With a production of something like 500,000 cameras, The Argus A was a significant part of the market at least numerically.<br /><br />After WWII Argus continued to supply their C-series cameras, continuing the C-3 and later more 'modern' looking cameras. However, they fairly floundered around trying to recapture the mass-market represented by the plastic "A" cameras. By 1953, this was the process that led to the marketing of the argus a-four (all lower case on the camera, but Argus themselves were inconsistent in using Argus A-4, Argus A-Four, [the ads below show a few cases of these], etc.).<br /><br />Well, I looked on eBay for an Argus A of my own, but couldn't find one right away at my desired price. I had a thought that somewhere I had some cameras that I had bought for 99¢ to round out a shipping charge on another camera I seriously wanted. One of these was an argus a-four. I had never tried it out, so got some Walgreen ISO 200 color negative film out of the fridge, the cable guy actually arrived so by 3 something (I'd been waiting since 8AM), and I went out to shoot. At first I couldn't tell if the shutter was working or not, so instead of going afield, I went back around the neighborhood again. While the best of the fall foliage got blown away a week ago, there were still some hardy leaves hanging on. So it ain't New England, but still it provided a test of the camera. Our fall colors here usually tend toward shades of brown-red without the bright carmine red of the East.<br /><br />First, here's the camera. A neat little package with a plastic body and a 'clip-on' back, which revealed no Holgaish light leaks.<br />It is a viewfinder with distance marks together with color dot (RYG) settings (black and white, color, and flash) for what is essentially hyperfocal distance settings for the lens with early 1950s film.<br /><br />It features a shutter made by Gauthier (B, 25,50,100,200) with flash sync, and a focusing Argus Coated Cintar 44mm f/3.5 lens, stopping down to f/22. It has a manually set film counter, an adequate viewfinder, better than the one on the Kodak Signet 35 or 40, for example.<br /><br />The shutter is one of those that requires the shutter to be cocked with a lever as well as winding the film on. This is common particularly in USA cameras of the 1950s. The shutter release on this one, possibly from age/disuse stiffness has a funny sort of delay -- first you press the release on the side of the lens all the way down, and then, after a brief moment, the shutter lever works. You have to be sure to continue holding the camera steady after pressing the release. It is possible that the slight delay may also have been intentional to separate the jiggle of the release from the actual leaf shutter action? That's the effect anyway, if not the intent. I metered with a Gossen LunaPro SBC and the shutter speeds seem to be accurate, looking at the negatives.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here is a medley of ads from 1954-1955. These are low-res, so just look at the pictures and don't try to sue me for your eye-problems.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>The first picture is a typical leaf picture and the closeups below are 100% clips from the upper left corner and the center, respectively.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>As the pictures show, there is a considerable loss of image quality out at the edges of the picture, but the center is decent if not looked at too closely. Frankly with a good range of speeds, and so on, this is not a candidate to replace some of the cameras sold for lomography™ -- it's simply too good for that.<br /><br />Here are a couple of actually-designed-by-an-architect houses in my neighborhood. This was one of the earliest subdivisions during the early expansion of the University in the GI Bill days. Much of the later construction in town is of more or less standard suburban ranch-style architecture ranging from the 50s to the 80s. There are a few earlier areas of town, but the expansion of the university took out great swathes of older faculty housing from the early days (pre-WWII and earlier). Frankly, by comparison to a lot of places, the National Register crop in town is a little anemic.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Finally, some foliage pictures showing the more subtle gradations of color that we have here in the areas around 37ºN 89ºW. Having grown up in Kansas, I am not fascinated by trees, but can appreciate a sort of Zen quality here.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>That's all folks.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Another interesting camera I've never encountered, and a great piece of '50' memorabilia. The photographs are certainly acceptable for a camera of it's specifications and price, somehow reminiscent of the kind of images I'd expect from an Agfa Silette. Thanks for an interesting and entertaining post.</p>

[cliffmanley]

I posted results with one of those quite some time ago and I found it to be extreamly sharp. I think there is something wrong with yours, (needs to be adjusted and the shutter should not lag) See my pictures on the post I called Hooterville with a a-four. They are not blurry like yours. Argus said this was the sharpest lens made in the USA at the time. It's really a pretty good little camera.

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Some of those period homes "architect-designed" show shades of Frank Lloyd Wright in their use of the deep and low slung eaves, emphasizing the perspective lines. I think, later on, Argus got their cameras made with Cosina for a few years. Thanks for the interesting post. sp</p>

[jim_grey1]

<p>I'm here because suddenly my blog post about my Argus A-Four is getting hits; thanks for the link.<br>

I've owned two of these over the years. Neither of them had any delay in the shutter firing after pressing the button. But I do see some fuzziness in the corners on photos with the one I have now, but not as much as yours seem to show.<br>

I have a handful '50s 35mm cameras, including a Retina and a Retinette, and in terms of shooting pleasure the A-Four beats them all.<br>

jim</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

I agree the results do exceed that artsy fartsy results that some are hoping for in a so called "less" of a camera! I remember Cliffs post too and it was impressive for a little camera.. Hopefully I 'll get an A one of these days and I wont refuse a the one or the other A4 if they're tossed in with another package!

[JDMvW]

<p>I was a little surprised by the lack of sharpness, too. I can't see what would be out of adjustment on it, and the lens was clear even before I cleaned the accessible surfaces. I suppose there might have variation in quality control.<br>

I scanned them in at 4800 dpi, so it's not low-res scans.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>By the way, I finally went back and found Cliff's earlier post on this camera. ( http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00RbG5 )<br>

Sorry I missed it before.</p>

[cliffmanley]

I like your post better, it's more of a review of the camera. The old ad says that that camera was really not as cheap as I had thought in my post. $39.00 back then was still a pretty good chunk of change.

 

I really can't remember exactly, but I think you can adjust the focus pretty easily by taking the aluminum ring off the front with the two screws and I think there were screws with eccentric slots behind there to turn the front lens to the correct position while watching a ground glass and then realign the infinity mark. I can't really remember but it was something like that, and easily done from the front. The blur could also be from camera shake becaust the shutter was hanging and you were actually moving when it went off.

[JDMvW]

<p>Thanks for the tip on the screws, now that I look at them more closely, it is possible that somebody has mucked with them. I also notice for the first time, a penciled G G 33/61 underneath the film canister side on the inside, so this may have been "serviced".<br>

<br /> I had thought of the shake possibility, but the 100% view of any of the pictures show the same as the example above, just blur, not movement. I was generally shooting above 1/100, usually 1/200. Once I "tripped" to how the shutter was pausing, I simply tripped the shutter and then held as still as I could. Here is one example from the "learning" experience that shows actual camera movement:</p><div></div>

[steve_10170]

<p>Come visit the Argus Museum in Ann Arbor <a href="http://jsurp.tripod.com/Argus_Museum.pdf">here</a> !!!! I've never been even though I live within a few miles, but have driven by the facility many times. Cheers!</p>

[peter_naylor1]

<p>JDM, the Argus A was not just a part of the market 'numerically' - its introduction in the mid-30s proved that a quality 35mm camera could be produced at a bargain basement price, and didn't have to be made in Germany and exported with Nazi Government subsidising. Up till then, the only relatively 'cheap' 35mm camera had been the Kodak Retina, but it still cost over 50 bucks. All of a sudden, precision bakelite moulding techniques could market a mass-produced camera for just ten bucks at the corner store. According to a 1972 book titled 'The American 35mm Camera' I acquired on the weekend for just two bucks, the lens/shutter assembly came from Ilex at just one dollar, which had the company beancounters worried but soon proved an excellent investment from a sub-contractor.</p>

<p>Stephen Gandy has an excellent article on the Argus Model A in his Camera Quest website here:<br>

<a href="http://www.cameraquest.com/arg2.htm">http://www.cameraquest.com/arg2.htm</a><br>

It's interesting to note that he reckons the humble Model A is the 2nd Most Important 35mm Camera Of All Time. No prizes to guess that the original Leica was the 1st on the cabrank, but of course it cost considerably more than 10 bucks .... (Pete In Perth)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, I agree, Pete. I said "at least". This post, however was really about the a-four, the a was background only.</p>

<p>Here's a link for a free e-book called <em>35mm for the Proletariat</em> from one of the links I gave above:<br /> http://theargusa.com/Book.htm</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Later:</p>

<p>Well the critics were right. One reason for the poor performance of the argus a-four was in fact a problem with my flatbed scanner. Here is the entire picture of a tree with 100% crops from the center and from the upper left. These were re-scanned on my Canoscan FS4000FS at 4000 ppi.</p>

<p>Better, not perfect, but definitely better than the scans above show.</p>

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

[cliffmanley]

That's looking more like it. I have found on mine that the 44mm doesn't cover the entire negative and has a profound drop off at the corners that you can almost see as a line something like this. But everything inside that is in very good focus. Is that what you are seeing?<div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Most definitely. Exactly so. Actually it might have its place in portraiture - sort of a self-made Petzval.<br /> Perhaps it is not quite symmetrical, though. Seems to be worse in the upper (lower on the negative) corners than the opposite side. It does show in the whole scan above. Then again, it may just be harder to see in "ground clutter".</p>

<p>I had not encountered such degrading of the image before with this scanner, but I usually used it for lower res scans, and I may have tried to push it where it isn't competent to go. Next time I use it, I'll see if it is the ppi or if something has gone awry with the dang thing.</p>