Dan Deary

<p>With auxiliary lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>Example 4</p><div></div>

<p>Example 3</p><div></div>

<p>Example 2</p><div></div>

<p>First the 120 film performance without auxiliary lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is some historical data on the “635.” There were many variations of the Yashica TLR line, but the “635” started its run in 1958 and ended in 1971(It’s sister camera “D” was produced simultaneously.) In the last few years of production the “635” and the “D” had the 4 element Yashinon lenses. My version has the 3 element f 3.5 80mm Yashikor lens and, based on the serial number, it was made in 1967. The price in 1969 was $90, the same as the 124 Mat. The “635” included the 35mm adaptor kit as standard. (I read one version of the Rolleicord also came with a 35mm kit.) There is not much historical data on the auxiliary wide and telephoto lenses. The versions I have are “Yashinon” and are a 2^nd generation model. I could not establish at this time what the cost was in 1969 but I suspect they were about $30 to $50 each. Many aftermarket auxiliary lenses were made, too.<br> My initial impression of the “635” is that it appears well made and well designed for its dual purpose. While never having used a Rolleikin 35mm adaptor on any Rollei, I suspect the “635” is far easier to change formats. I believe with the Rolleikin that small screws had to be swapped out for longer ones (Please correct me if I am wrong.) <br> The shutter has a Copal-MXV with manual cocking with no double exposure prevention. Shutter speeds range from 1 sec to 1/500 sec. It also has a self timer, but to engage it, you must be sure the flash sync is set on “X” or you could damage the shutter. The camera functions exactly like the Yashica D except when using the 35 kit. My camera was in excellent condition with smooth focusing and all shutter speeds appeared accurate.<br> In reading about the “635,” most users regard the Yashica 3 element lens to be very good, just a little soft on the edges especially when using large apertures. There are not a lot of opinions on the 35mm performance. As far as the auxiliary lenses are concerned the overwhelming opinion is <em>negative</em>, except perhaps the use of the Telephoto for “soft” portraiture.” So with that information, I decided to test both 120 and 35mm formats along with the two auxiliary lenses. <br> I was fortunate that I have the original “635” manual which detailed how to change the format to 35mm and load the film. I suspect most camera users could have figured out how to do this without the manual. Interestingly enough, the main manual never mentions the use of auxiliary lenses. I managed to find a separate manual for the auxiliary lenses with very skimpy information. It states “no compensation in exposure is necessary.” It goes on to say “Apertures of f/5.6 to f/11 are recommended to prevent vignetting.” The conversion with the Telephoto is 112.8 mm, close to a 50% increase in focal length. Conversion for the Wide Angle is 58.4mm, a focal length reduction of 25% and a picture area increase of 75%. On the cover of this manual, it shows the auxiliary lens attached to a “635”. Does that mean the auxiliary lenses were designed specifically for the Yashikor lens? Does the performance improve or deteriorate with a Yashinon lens?<br> The “635” loads 120 film like most TLRs by lining up arrows on the film backing with the camera arrows. Controls for using 120 film are all on the right side. Knob film advance is initiated by pushing the film release button. It is simple and very reliable whereas the 124 Mat has some history of problems with the crank advance.</p> <div></div>

<p>"635" cont'</p><div></div>

<p>"635' cont'</p><div></div>

<p>When I was 18 or so when the photo bug first hit me, I would peruse all the back pages for the ads in the Photo mags and wish for the day I could afford all those goodies. My father had a Sears Tower TLR and I was most familiar with TLR procedures so my attention often went to the TLR ads. The Yashica impressed me because the prices were more reasonable and most write-ups considered the Yashicas to be good quality for the price. The Yashica 635 stood out because it took 120 film and the cheaper 35mm film. Wow! Two cameras in one package! Some ads also featured the wide angle and telephoto auxiliary lenses. At age 18, around 1968, that was my dream outfit. I figured with the dual formats with auxiliary lenses, it was all I would ever want or hope for. For a lot of reasons, that dream never materialized until several years ago. </p> <p>In an antique store in Georgia, I came across this Yashica 635 with 35mm kit and the two auxiliary lenses, all complete with leather cases and instruction manual. Remembering my initial fascination with this outfit, I couldn’t resist and plunked down $80 –Heck, I was on vacation( I tend to pay more for cameras on vacation--you too?) After checking some auction sites, recently, it seems $80 was a bargain.</p> <div></div>

<p>My worse camera ever and mine worked! It does make me appreciate the Argus C3 more. I can see your reluctance JDM but someone had to do it.</p>

<p>The best part I can say about the Argus C3 that it does work which is more than I can say about my 3 Russian cameras. <em>If I had no other choices</em> I could live with this camera after I fix the light leak. I could also live with changing the lenses too. But using this camera is sort of akin to asking if you had 20 acres to plow would you rather plow with a mule or a John Deere tractor? Both would do the job although with the mule perhaps with less finesse and precision. However the tractor has less personality and character (not to insult any John Deere fans.) Of course it is not the quickest camera to use either and there is more thinking involved in setting the exposure, cocking the shutter, focusing, and winding the film.(Did I mention there is no double exposure prevention?) You could argue that the extra concentration will result in better pictures. Some will argue just the opposite. As I think about it, the Leica III that I have from the same era comes close to having the same level of “fussiness” as the Brick (but oh does it feel great in your hands!).<br> A final thought: How is it that every successful camera design gets copied, ala Leica, Rollei,and Contax but no one ever copied the 3C? I think I know why but I will leave it to you readers to to come up with the answer ( I doubt that Gustave Fassin will be uttered in the same breath as Oskar Barnack.)</p> <p>As a side note, Jack Parr was so enthralled with his beloved Leica that he named his German Sheppard “Leica.” I am not sure I would ever name my dog “Argus.” If I ever got a mule, maybe.</p>

<p>Another example</p><div></div>

<p> Aside from the light leak issue the C3 performed better than I anticipated especially with the additional lenses. I did not go to the darkroom to enlarge any images and I suspect on an 11 X 14 print, even an 8 X 10, I would see the lenses’ shortcomings. I also suspect that most who shot slides through the years were generally pleased with results. The $189.40 Package back in 1956 was about ¼ the cost of a similar Leica package. In that day the average American probably found the Argus C3 to be more than adequate for the price</p><div></div>

<p>Another light leak</p><div></div>

<p>There were intermittent, perhaps 5 out of a 24 exp roll, unexplained light leaks that were vertical about 4 mm wide in every roll. After some deduction in exposing another role of film using black tape alternatively covering the viewfinder both rear and front I can say there is some internal reflection from the front viewfinder and/or rangefinder window that travel to the rear hinged back. Putting additional sealer of some kind around the rear eyelets might solve the problem. Incidentally if you Google "Argus C3 light leaks" you will get a number people who celebrate the light leaks and love the look. Most of them are worse than mine.</p><div></div>

<p>The Telephoto</p><div></div>

<p>The normal lens.</p><div></div>

<p>All images of the water tower, our favorite subject, were from a tripod mounted camera to eliminate any camera shake. All images were scanned with an Epson flatbed 2450 using Vuescan, admittedly not the best for 35mm film. The film was Fuji Superia X-tra 400 developed commercially.</p><div></div>

<p>And the Telephoto</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the Argus Instruction for removing and replacing the lens which I shortened for brevity:</p> <p>1. Set rangefinder wheel to 3 foot position.<br> 2. Unscrew idler wheel cap and remove idler gear by lifting straight up.<br> 3. Unscrew lens from front plate—it may take a little effort.<br> 4. Screw new lens into front plate clockwise and seat it firmly.<br> 5. Turn focusing mount counterclockwise until first tooth of focus mount gear is in position to engage idler gear.<br> 6. Turn rangefinder wheel to infinity position.<br> 7. Drop idler gear in place—make sure it still maintains infinity setting.<br> 8. Turn rangefinder dial wheel to 3 foot position and install idler wheel cap.</p> <p>There you have it. Any gifted child could do this. Most adults wouldn't bother.</p> <p>The Sandmar lenses are coated, F: 4.5, look reasonably well made with 10 blade irises. However the barrels are made with light metal that tarnishes easily. Both were made in occupied Germany by Enna-Werk. There is not a lot of information about these lenses but the 100mm tele has 4 elements. I could find nothing on the 35mm. Both have Argus imprinted on the barrel. Fortunately both of mine came with original lens shade and cases. Apparently other manufacturers, like Soligar, made additional lenses later.</p><div></div>

<p>The C3 Brick is a very basic, no nonsense camera with its own quirks that many found wanting. The brick shape is a little daunting and does not feel comfortable to hold and releasing the shutter is a challenge because the cocking level gets in the way of fingers when the shutter is released. The sturdy and heavy body is made of chrome and Bakelite(They don’t make plastics like that anymore!!) The shutter release is so stiff that camera movement is likely. The two rear windows of the viewfinder and rangefinder are poorly designed although the rangefinder is brighter than my Leica III. Accuracy is questionable though. There are 5 to 7 shutter speeds(depending on what variant you have) 1/10 through 1/300 sec. It is hard to believe they are all accurate. On the 50mm Cintar on the front, aperture settings are made by directly looking into the lens so that you get a visual of the lens opening. A bit inconvenient, and if you use a lens shade even more so.(The lens shade also impedes the viewfinder and rangefinder windows.) The Sandmar lenses have all the markings on the barrel. Advancing the film is by winding knob having to push a lever briefly before advancing, some have torn film with this design. Having written about all its shortcomings it is hard to believe it sold so well and was so popular. Perhaps the scientific look was its charm. It may also be because it was a great camera to learn the basics to move on to more desirable and sophisticated cameras. My wife of course loved it because it produced far better pictures than her Instamatic and was proud that she learned some camera controls.<br> Another aspect of the C3 is lens interchangeability. Because of the primitive arrangement with the rangefinder and the lens through gear coupling it makes changing a lens a bit of an ordeal and I suspect most did not bother. Describing the ordeal takes more time than actually doing it. It is not something to do on the fly or out in the open for fear of losing parts. With practice I am able to do it in just over a minute. Some might take two minutes. The problem is aligning the lens, the idler gear and rangefinder through the outer gears. It helps to have a little OCD.</p><div></div>

<p>The C3 was brought to market in 1939 and remained in production in several variants until 1966. It had been preceded by the Argus A in 1936 and later the C2 in 1938. The design was inspired by the Leica. A Belgian designer and engineer Gustave Fassin was primarily the originator of the A and C models. According to the Argus Museum “ Over 2 million “Bricks “ were sold…. . The C3 holds the position in photographic history analogous to the Model T Ford; it has been called the most popular 35mm camera in history.” This coincides with the introduction of Kodachrome in 1935. I would speculate the that the C3 was responsible for the popularity of the 35mm format over any other camera. At the museum ,it also stated the 50mm Cintar, a cooke triplet was very similar in design to the Leica Elmar(not really as the Elmar is a Tessar design) but the quality control in production was less stringent, which may explain some bad raps. Most reviewers will say from f/5.6 on the lens is adequate or even very good. In surveys of consumers, the C3 sold well because it looked “Scientific.” If you Google “Argus ads” you will find most of the ads were placed with the publications of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, a brilliant marketing move.</p><div></div>

<p>I remembered I had such a package which I acquired though garage sales or camera shows over many years. I confess I never used them. In fact I had a total of three C3’s, one of which was my wife’s camera when I first met her 30 years ago. She was self taught, learned instinctively to open the lens when cloudy and close it down when bright. She also used filters “because I like blue skies.” The other thing that impressed me was that she traded her Instamatic to someone for the C3. Now that’s smart and that’s one of the reasons I married her.<br> Another reason for my interest, was that I live about 40 min away from Ann Arbor where all the C3’s were manufactured and there is a wonderful, small Argus museum that I recently visited that is very informative and details the Argus history with their many different cameras from 1936 to 1969. I also became aware of Tony Vacarro’s(later a Life magazine photographer) WWII photos taken with an Argus C3 as an infantryman in Europe and he stated he used this camera because “It was indestructible.”</p><div></div>

<p>What peaked my interest was that I saw an advertisement from a Life magazine, dated Oct 1956 It reads: “To the man who can afford to spend $460 or more on a fine camera (But Would Rather Not” It compares itself to a Camera “A” package(perhaps a Retina) consisting of a camera with a 50mm normal lens plus a telephoto and wide angle lens =$457. A Camera “B” package, very likely a Leica, with the two extra lenses=$771. The Argus C3 Package that includes flash, case and two Sandmar lenses, 35mm and 100mm respectively=$189.40. It then states: “You save money without the loss of picture quality.”</p><div></div>

<p>The Three Amigos</p><div></div>