hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if there is anyone out there using an Argus C3 for personal projects/serious work. I have a C3 that I rebuilt myself, using the guides on the Argus collector's group website. It is now a very nice functioning camera that takes some pretty swell pictures. I know it's not a Leica, but I still find some intangible charm in using it. Does anyone else feel the same way, or am I absolutely crazy? It seems like most of the pictures on flickr that are tagged with "Argus" are just pictures of the cameras, not pictures taken WITH the camera.
To pique interest, here is one of the pictures I took with it after rebuilding:
To pique interest, here is one of the pictures I took with it after rebuilding:
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
The C-3 and other Argus cameras in my collection take a sideline to my Leicas, but I agree it is descent camera with a capable lens. And I occasionally put a roll through it.
Fun camera? Heck yes. Do I think it is a camera for serious work/projects? No.
I've only done small CLA jobs to the few Argi I own, never a complete tear-down and rebuild. Judging from the image I think you did a good job
Fun camera? Heck yes. Do I think it is a camera for serious work/projects? No.
I've only done small CLA jobs to the few Argi I own, never a complete tear-down and rebuild. Judging from the image I think you did a good job
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
I was just wondering if anyone else in the world was using this camera for personal projects. Apparently, I'm an anomaly. There's just something about the camera that's plain "fun" to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Tony Vaccaro was a WWII soldier and photojournalist in Europe, who took most of his images with an Argus C3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Vaccaro
Also there was a recent photographer using the C3 for one of his projects. The name escapes me but is probably searchable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Vaccaro
Also there was a recent photographer using the C3 for one of his projects. The name escapes me but is probably searchable.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Thanks for the recommendation, Jan. I just picked up the book of his German war photos for quite cheap on Amazon. I'll look forward to looking through it.
Proteus617
Established
I use my C3 quite a bit. If only the lens was as cool as the body. It's not good enough to product a "wow" effect, not bad enough to complain about, not nearly bad enough to be interesting. Still so much fun to shoot. As far as Argus glass goes, the AF is more fun. At least until I find that Sandmar 35.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Surely, the seriousness or otherwise depends on the person behind the camera and their intent at the time. So yes if you want to.
What's an Argus C3 anyway?
Mike
What's an Argus C3 anyway?
Mike
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Sonofdanang, I did not mean to imply that the C-3 is a camera that cannot be used for serious work. You are completely right that it comes down to the photographer and what he does with the tools and situation given to him.
Hipsterdufus, I have used an Argus C-3 for a project back in 2006, I was a photographer travelling on the "Back to the Bocage" tour; A WW2 re-enactment 2-week event following the route taken by the 2nd Armored Division in Normandy, with a column of armored vehicles, jeeps, trucks and about a 150 re-enactors.
I used the C-3, not because it was the best camera for the job, but because it was a camera used during the period, as Jan pointed out.
Hipsterdufus, I have used an Argus C-3 for a project back in 2006, I was a photographer travelling on the "Back to the Bocage" tour; A WW2 re-enactment 2-week event following the route taken by the 2nd Armored Division in Normandy, with a column of armored vehicles, jeeps, trucks and about a 150 re-enactors.
I used the C-3, not because it was the best camera for the job, but because it was a camera used during the period, as Jan pointed out.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
Here's some results from last week's shot with my Argus. I used expired Tmax 400 stand developed in Rodinal 1:100. This is the first developing I have done in almost a decade and I am still floored by the results (in a good way).
If anyone is interested in the details of each shot, let me know and I can rummage through the info on them.
If anyone is interested in the details of each shot, let me know and I can rummage through the info on them.
Otter
Newbie
I learned how to take pictures using a C-3 in my early teens. I still use a C-3 for situations where i dont want to worry about damaging more expensive cameras such as rainy days, at the beach and in the rougher parts of town - situations that take advantage of the c-3's reliable and robust nature. The lenses are not as sharp as more costly ones but for many shots sharpness isnt that critical. And there is a certain satisfaction in getting a good photo out of a so-called "inferior" camera.
gp-ak
Member
Duane Michals also used a C3, among other cameras.
I think the C3 is totally sufficient for professional use (although probably to archaic for commercial use today). The C3 is a really nice little camera, simple, solid construction, in the hands of somebody with a good grip on fundamentals of camera operation it can produce excellent images that I would put up against any images made by people with more prestigious gear.
It can't do everything a more expensive camera can do, what so what? Its simple and solidly built. Compare Vaccaro and Michals, you can see the C3 is quite a versatile and capable little camera, definetly usable for "serious" photography.
The glass may not be the best, but its far from the worst too, as long as you recognize what the C3 can and can't do, you'll get some great images.
I bought a C3 some years ago for a specific project involving multiple exposures, so for that the separate shutter cocking was a convenience. It worked well, and the lens is very good... but I wasn't surprised, because...
A couple decades before that when I was in the military, a non-com discussed his experiences earlier when he'd been posted to Hawaii. He had a C3 and made a practice of shooting the touristy shots on Kodachrome to be used on postcards. Said he sold a lot of pics for that purpose for fun and profit.
A couple decades before that when I was in the military, a non-com discussed his experiences earlier when he'd been posted to Hawaii. He had a C3 and made a practice of shooting the touristy shots on Kodachrome to be used on postcards. Said he sold a lot of pics for that purpose for fun and profit.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I put another roll (Plus-X) in mine...it's been cleaned up and new leather put on...
Serious Project camera...I don't know...but I do want to know more of what this one's capable of doing...seeing what I got from the first roll and other shots I've seen on-line I like that this lens can be sharp and will produce images that will satisfy my needs...
Serious Project camera...I don't know...but I do want to know more of what this one's capable of doing...seeing what I got from the first roll and other shots I've seen on-line I like that this lens can be sharp and will produce images that will satisfy my needs...
farlymac
PF McFarland
I've got a couple of C-3's, and have only shot one roll of film through one of them, but it was for a project. I had modded a lens for a friend of mine, and used my camera to test it. I was pleased that it was not a hard camera to get used to, but it was not something I would want to run a lot of film through until I get around to loosening it up a bit.
I have several old cameras that I have shot with, and the C-3 is by far the quirkiest of the bunch. But I did get some decent photos out of it, as you have from yours Eric.
The thing is, you can match up many cameras for a situation, or use the same one for everything. But it is no different if I were to use a C-3, or a Bencini Koroll, or a Kodak Automatic 35. Each one is going to give me something different, and that is what is intriguing about them. But since I have so many of them to play around with, it is hard to say 'Today I will start a project with the C-3'. But I can see myself getting serious about using it some day, that along with my Dad's Argus CC.
PF
I have several old cameras that I have shot with, and the C-3 is by far the quirkiest of the bunch. But I did get some decent photos out of it, as you have from yours Eric.
The thing is, you can match up many cameras for a situation, or use the same one for everything. But it is no different if I were to use a C-3, or a Bencini Koroll, or a Kodak Automatic 35. Each one is going to give me something different, and that is what is intriguing about them. But since I have so many of them to play around with, it is hard to say 'Today I will start a project with the C-3'. But I can see myself getting serious about using it some day, that along with my Dad's Argus CC.
PF
Graham Line
Well-known
The C3 is fine within the limits of its rangefinder and the f3.5 Cintar lens. It got me through a couple of college courses before someone decided they needed it more . . .
It seemed happiest with mid-speed films like FP4 and Plus-X, rather than Tri-X that tended to bump up against the fastest shutter speed.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74312783@N00/sets/72157623619389180/
It seemed happiest with mid-speed films like FP4 and Plus-X, rather than Tri-X that tended to bump up against the fastest shutter speed.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74312783@N00/sets/72157623619389180/
raid
Dad Photographer
Try using Ilford XP2 Super with the Cintar. They give great results.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I wouldn't use it for anything other than novelty. Why?
If I am going to grab a camera for some serious work, and I have several cameras to chose from, why would I pick the C3? What does it do for me better than a Canon RF, or a Kodak Retina, etc.
Perhaps it made financial sense back in the day, when it cost $35 and a Leica cost $250, but the average salary was $2000-$5000.
If I am going to grab a camera for some serious work, and I have several cameras to chose from, why would I pick the C3? What does it do for me better than a Canon RF, or a Kodak Retina, etc.
Perhaps it made financial sense back in the day, when it cost $35 and a Leica cost $250, but the average salary was $2000-$5000.
dave lackey
Veteran
Here's some results from last week's shot with my Argus. I used expired Tmax 400 stand developed in Rodinal 1:100. This is the first developing I have done in almost a decade and I am still floored by the results (in a good way).
If anyone is interested in the details of each shot, let me know and I can rummage through the info on them.
Nice, Eric!
The OP should be happy to be an anamoly...it is the unique that carries the day. One must enjoy the tools and the resulting images.
dave lackey
Veteran
Just out of curiosity, I was wondering if there is anyone out there using an Argus C3 for personal projects/serious work. I have a C3 that I rebuilt myself, using the guides on the Argus collector's group website. It is now a very nice functioning camera that takes some pretty swell pictures. I know it's not a Leica, but I still find some intangible charm in using it. Does anyone else feel the same way, or am I absolutely crazy? It seems like most of the pictures on flickr that are tagged with "Argus" are just pictures of the cameras, not pictures taken WITH the camera.
To pique interest, here is one of the pictures I took with it after rebuilding:
Nice picture...good job that anyone should be proud of....
