Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I've never used a FED, but have used both the Argus C3 and C4. I'd say they are more like FEDs than Leicas though.
Argus, is it America's Leica? or America's FED?
- Thread starter spystyle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 13K
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Spoiler Alert!
Spoiler Alert!
IIRC, that was the only C3 to ever count DOWN how many pictures remain on the roll.
Spoiler Alert!
IIRC, that was the only C3 to ever count DOWN how many pictures remain on the roll.
spystyle
Established
That's an excellent quote 🙂
Ken Rockwell says that too (click)
Then Michael Reichmann rebuttals him (click)
However, I agree, the camera doesn't especially matter. It's the photographer's skill with his instrument (he must understand how to work within it's limitations) and the photographer's artistic vision.
I see the most stunning photos on flickr that come from poor Russians with cheap Pentax cameras.
Likewise sometimes I see the most stunning photo and I find out it's from a teenage girl who's probably never read a photo-book, and it was taken with Canon digital point-and-shoot in "auto mode".
So yeah, I'm really into the whole "camera doesn't matter" theory. I believe it. But I'm also a gear-head so I like to try them all 🙂
spystyle
Established
Hey thanks for the link - coincidentally I just received my C3 in the mail today and it's in poor shape 🙁 To add insult to injury the seller mailed it in an envelope instead of a box.
Last edited:
spystyle
Established
Also after examining the C3 and C-four, it seems the C-four is far ahead of it's predecessor.
I like the C-four a lot better with it's coupled rangefinder (single viewfinder) and it looks very nice too.
I like the C-four a lot better with it's coupled rangefinder (single viewfinder) and it looks very nice too.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
I wouldn't rate them with Leicas, but they are pretty darned good cameras and you get way more than you paid for as far as photo quality goes. I doubt anyone back then had even heard of ergonomics though, and it shows. Here are mine:
The C3 has new leather, but the C4 is 100% original. I'll be watching the mail box for yours.
Charles
BTW, I remembered something I think you'd enjoy reading. Took me a while to find it, but here it is: http://www.cameraquest.com/argc3let.htm
The C3 has new leather, but the C4 is 100% original. I'll be watching the mail box for yours.
Charles
BTW, I remembered something I think you'd enjoy reading. Took me a while to find it, but here it is: http://www.cameraquest.com/argc3let.htm
Last edited:
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Hardly. The C3 was the best-selling camera in the whole world for almost 30 years. The reason was that it was inexpensive and it worked very well, within its limitations. You got exactly what you needed to take good sharp photos, but not one bit more.
Proteus617
Established
No such thing as a C3 in poor shape. One hour, Q-tips, lighter fluid, and a screwdriver and your good to go. That's the true beauty of the beast. Also...the seller shipped it in an envelope? Hope it didn't hurt the rest of the mail.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Some need releathering, but that's the worst I've seen. They were literally made so a highschool graduate, in a muddy fox hole, could strip it down and repair it in the field.
burninfilm
Well-known
Just saw this thread, so I thought I'd mention a few things.
Yes, the Argus was designed to make a quick buck. The original manufacturer made radios, and seeing an opportunity in 35mm photography, jumped into camera manufacturing. However, they had to have something that worked well (just ask Perfex and Clarus how American camera manufacturers can quickly die), even if their products seem primitive today. You really have to view the Argus camera line in its context. In the 1930s, it was really the only inexpensive 35mm camera available. It even made decent pictures. Then, they introduced the "modern" C-series line in the late 1930s. While the early C-series Argus cameras may seem "clunky" and "crude" today, they were quite innovative, feature laden, and gave good quality results. If you want to see just how "clunky" and "crude" an American 35mm camera can be, check out the Perfex Speed Candid. An Argus C-series camera seems refined in comparison. In 1938, the original Argus C sold for $24.78. During that same year, other rangefinder cameras sold for considerably more, with the Kodak Retina II going for $126.00, and the Welta Weltini (with Cassar f2.9 lens) selling for $69.95. It's important to remember that in 1938, there weren't many options for rangefinder equipped 35mm cameras, and with the Argus selling for at least 1/2 of what the competition offered, it's easy to understand why Argus cameras sold so well, and why the C-series was so insanely successful in the beginning.
However, I do believe the essence of the Argus camera line started to die off in the 1950s. The Argus C4 was really their last great camera (again, in my opinion), having the simplicity and affordability that made the C3 so popular. Their later cameras tried to incorporate many innovations from the 1950s, such as advance/rewind levers and coupled exposure meters, but Argus failed to execute them well. I've used/handled nearly all of the interchangeable lens Argus cameras, and feel the lens mounts/cameras show only that Argus was never really sure how to approach this "new" feature. Worse yet, by the time these cameras started appearing, the competition from Germany and Japan started introducing better cameras at similar, if not better, prices. For example, in 1960 the Minolta Super A was being sold for $129.50, while the Argus C-44 was going for $99.95. That's a difference of only $30, and the Minolta had a better 7-element f2.0 lens, a full range of shutter speeds, a better viewfinder, etc. Granted, $30 had a lot of purchasing power in 1960, but when the buyer had better options available at the same price range, why purchase the "gimmicky" Argus? The introduction of nice, inexpensive Japanese SLRs also had a detrimental impact for Argus sales.
However, the Standard C3 still was competitive in 1960, selling for $39.95, with a Kodak Pony II kit selling at $42.95 (the Argus was a more versatile camera). However, even in this market, Japanese camera manufacturers were starting to pinch down with camera like the Minolta A, a nice rangefinder equipped 35mm camera with a nice integrated RF/VF and good lens selling for $49.95.
So, after observing these changes in the competition from the 1930s to the 1960s, it's simply to conlude that Argus simply over-extended its ambitions into markets it wasn't well suited for, and ultimately was forced out of its original market by heavy competition from Japan.
Now, is the Argus America's FED? Is it America's Leica? No, it's something else. Argus is America's Argus. The FED was a Leica clone made with a focus on production quantity in Russia. The Leica was a high-end camera with the best precision available in 35mm cameras, intended for serious or wealthy photo enthusiasts and professionals. It's true that in comparison to a Leica, an Argus camera will seem like a toy. However, the Argus is still a capable picture-taker. So, if it's not a Leica or FED, what was the Argus? It was an innovative, completely original design intended to earn IRC/Argus a good profit while equipping as many Americans as possible with a 35mm camera. The more they sold, the more profit they earned. However, it had to work well, and be something people would actually buy.
In the end, that's exactly what happened... people bought them, and judging by the surviving specimens still clicking away 50-70 years later, it looks like they worked pretty damn well.
The Argus is it's own special camera...
1938 pricing data from the 1938 Wards Camera Catalog. 1960 pricing data comes from 1960 Elko Photo Products Photo Catalog.
Yes, the Argus was designed to make a quick buck. The original manufacturer made radios, and seeing an opportunity in 35mm photography, jumped into camera manufacturing. However, they had to have something that worked well (just ask Perfex and Clarus how American camera manufacturers can quickly die), even if their products seem primitive today. You really have to view the Argus camera line in its context. In the 1930s, it was really the only inexpensive 35mm camera available. It even made decent pictures. Then, they introduced the "modern" C-series line in the late 1930s. While the early C-series Argus cameras may seem "clunky" and "crude" today, they were quite innovative, feature laden, and gave good quality results. If you want to see just how "clunky" and "crude" an American 35mm camera can be, check out the Perfex Speed Candid. An Argus C-series camera seems refined in comparison. In 1938, the original Argus C sold for $24.78. During that same year, other rangefinder cameras sold for considerably more, with the Kodak Retina II going for $126.00, and the Welta Weltini (with Cassar f2.9 lens) selling for $69.95. It's important to remember that in 1938, there weren't many options for rangefinder equipped 35mm cameras, and with the Argus selling for at least 1/2 of what the competition offered, it's easy to understand why Argus cameras sold so well, and why the C-series was so insanely successful in the beginning.
However, I do believe the essence of the Argus camera line started to die off in the 1950s. The Argus C4 was really their last great camera (again, in my opinion), having the simplicity and affordability that made the C3 so popular. Their later cameras tried to incorporate many innovations from the 1950s, such as advance/rewind levers and coupled exposure meters, but Argus failed to execute them well. I've used/handled nearly all of the interchangeable lens Argus cameras, and feel the lens mounts/cameras show only that Argus was never really sure how to approach this "new" feature. Worse yet, by the time these cameras started appearing, the competition from Germany and Japan started introducing better cameras at similar, if not better, prices. For example, in 1960 the Minolta Super A was being sold for $129.50, while the Argus C-44 was going for $99.95. That's a difference of only $30, and the Minolta had a better 7-element f2.0 lens, a full range of shutter speeds, a better viewfinder, etc. Granted, $30 had a lot of purchasing power in 1960, but when the buyer had better options available at the same price range, why purchase the "gimmicky" Argus? The introduction of nice, inexpensive Japanese SLRs also had a detrimental impact for Argus sales.
However, the Standard C3 still was competitive in 1960, selling for $39.95, with a Kodak Pony II kit selling at $42.95 (the Argus was a more versatile camera). However, even in this market, Japanese camera manufacturers were starting to pinch down with camera like the Minolta A, a nice rangefinder equipped 35mm camera with a nice integrated RF/VF and good lens selling for $49.95.
So, after observing these changes in the competition from the 1930s to the 1960s, it's simply to conlude that Argus simply over-extended its ambitions into markets it wasn't well suited for, and ultimately was forced out of its original market by heavy competition from Japan.
Now, is the Argus America's FED? Is it America's Leica? No, it's something else. Argus is America's Argus. The FED was a Leica clone made with a focus on production quantity in Russia. The Leica was a high-end camera with the best precision available in 35mm cameras, intended for serious or wealthy photo enthusiasts and professionals. It's true that in comparison to a Leica, an Argus camera will seem like a toy. However, the Argus is still a capable picture-taker. So, if it's not a Leica or FED, what was the Argus? It was an innovative, completely original design intended to earn IRC/Argus a good profit while equipping as many Americans as possible with a 35mm camera. The more they sold, the more profit they earned. However, it had to work well, and be something people would actually buy.
In the end, that's exactly what happened... people bought them, and judging by the surviving specimens still clicking away 50-70 years later, it looks like they worked pretty damn well.
The Argus is it's own special camera...
1938 pricing data from the 1938 Wards Camera Catalog. 1960 pricing data comes from 1960 Elko Photo Products Photo Catalog.
- Local time
- 2:11 AM
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,270
Burni,
The first FEDs were clones but even a early as the FED 2 you can see some signs of if not innovation some creative stealing from other cameras (read NOT Leica).
I agree it was a true American camera in many ways. The company kept with what they knew when the market moved and disappeared. While I have no way of proving it, my expectation owning a slightly newer Retina is that the lens on Kodak kicked the Argus' butt. Yes it was several times the price and in the consumer market there was not the need for that level of quality (lens or build).
During the early days of the Argus I believe Kodak was trying to move people away from paper backed film but they had a lot of sunk cost into that market (engineering, machines, etc.). I also think the quality of 135 enlargements were as good as you could get from a MF-ish sized negative. I also think that Japan was making dramatic improvements in quality (which showed up first in cameras and electronics and then in autos) which hurt the wonderful little brick. Sleeker style, equal quality, winner Japan.
It's an interesting question and I really enjoyed your perspective, thanks.
B2 (;->
The first FEDs were clones but even a early as the FED 2 you can see some signs of if not innovation some creative stealing from other cameras (read NOT Leica).
I agree it was a true American camera in many ways. The company kept with what they knew when the market moved and disappeared. While I have no way of proving it, my expectation owning a slightly newer Retina is that the lens on Kodak kicked the Argus' butt. Yes it was several times the price and in the consumer market there was not the need for that level of quality (lens or build).
During the early days of the Argus I believe Kodak was trying to move people away from paper backed film but they had a lot of sunk cost into that market (engineering, machines, etc.). I also think the quality of 135 enlargements were as good as you could get from a MF-ish sized negative. I also think that Japan was making dramatic improvements in quality (which showed up first in cameras and electronics and then in autos) which hurt the wonderful little brick. Sleeker style, equal quality, winner Japan.
It's an interesting question and I really enjoyed your perspective, thanks.
B2 (;->
burninfilm
Well-known
You make some interesting points. Yes, stating that all FEDs are simply Leica clones is an over-generalization. The FED 2, FED 3, etc. are all innovative/creative in their own way. However, they are still all largely based on the mechanics of a Leica thread-mount camera. The Argus, on the other hand, especially the C-3, was very much unlike any camera produced before. The mechanics of the C-3 shutter are unique... simple, effective, and inexpensive to manufacture/service. Now, these Argus cameras aren't some sort of golden standard... the shutters are NOT the most accurate devices in the world. However, they're accurate enough to usually get the job done.
So, the Russian manufacturers copied a proven design, and tweaked it as needed. On the other hand, Argus used a unique, simple design all its own. You might even say they're different solutions for the same problem... creating an affordable 35mm camera for the masses.
Yes, the Retina lens (in this case, a 50mm f2.0 Xenon) is a better performer compared with the f3.5 Cintar of the C-3. However, the Cintar is a surprisingly good performer.
I'm not so sure Kodak was really trying to move people away from paper-backed film... if anything, they were simply trying to keep people from using paper backed film from OTHER film manufacturers. That's why they made formats like 620. Heck, in the later 1930s they even introduced a paper-backed rollfilm competitor to their new 35mm cassette... 828. Evidently, Kodak was still interested in selling rollfilm, just as long as it was THEIR rollfilm.
So, the Russian manufacturers copied a proven design, and tweaked it as needed. On the other hand, Argus used a unique, simple design all its own. You might even say they're different solutions for the same problem... creating an affordable 35mm camera for the masses.
Yes, the Retina lens (in this case, a 50mm f2.0 Xenon) is a better performer compared with the f3.5 Cintar of the C-3. However, the Cintar is a surprisingly good performer.
I'm not so sure Kodak was really trying to move people away from paper-backed film... if anything, they were simply trying to keep people from using paper backed film from OTHER film manufacturers. That's why they made formats like 620. Heck, in the later 1930s they even introduced a paper-backed rollfilm competitor to their new 35mm cassette... 828. Evidently, Kodak was still interested in selling rollfilm, just as long as it was THEIR rollfilm.
bmattock
Veteran
That was outstanding, thank you!
Pompiere
Established
A lot of what drove the Argus design was their desire to make use of the Bakelite production line during the "off season" from manufacturing radios. Radios were more of a winter market, when people stayed indoors, and cameras sold more in the summer. Bakelite has its manufacturing limitations, which were fine for the simple cameras like the A and C, but would not work for the small parts and mechinisms in a more modern camera. For whatever reason, Argus did not invest in the tooling to update the designs that had made their fortunes.
robin a
Well-known
I have a really good C 44 with all the lenses and hoods.Fun to use,a little "quirky" .Great results if not in a hurry............Robin
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
