View Full Version : Argus, is it America's Leica? or America's FED?
spystyle
12-23-2009, 05:59
Hello from Maine :)
I just recently noticed Argus and discovered they are from America. This is after I already studied Russian cameras and German cameras. I wonder, are we Americans very proud of old Argus cameras?
I'm thinking of using an Argus "A" and a hand held meter, I just might do it :) The "C" looks good too.
Is Argus America's Leica, America's FED, or something else?
Thanks :)
Craig
Spider67
12-23-2009, 06:13
To call it Americas Leica would be a bit over the top.
It's rather like the Volkswagen of cameras a true People's Camera.
As it is something genuinely American and not a copy like the first Zorkis or Feds it also earns a place of its own.
Enjoy using it!
The 50mm lenses are excellent.
The camera is what America had to offer.
newspaperguy
12-23-2009, 06:46
The old Argus C-3 "Brick" was one tough-ass camera. I took one to Korea with me in 1951. Later, bought a pair of Leicas at an AFEX for the interchangable lenses. The earlier model Argus (A 1?) was a plasticky thing - but one of my first 35's.
spystyle
12-23-2009, 07:15
Thanks all for the replies :)
The Argus (Argi?) were definitely not intended to compete w/the best from Leitz or Zeiss Ikon.
America's Leica or Contax equivalents were the Kodak Ektra (http://www.bnphoto.org/bnphoto/KodakEktraIndex.htm) & the Bell & Howell Foton (www.vintagephoto.tv/foton.shtml (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/www.vintagephoto.tv/foton.shtml)), both of which were great systems, but overpriced & failed in the market.
rjbuzzclick
12-23-2009, 07:24
I think the Volkswagon analogy is spot on. The Argus cameras really helped bring affordable photography to the masses.
Funny, I just posted this on my flickr page last weekend:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/4198461429/
Happy Holidays!
Steve M.
12-23-2009, 08:05
More the American version of The People's Camera. Surprisingly good cameras and the lenses are good too. If you shoot color you'll love them as they have a certain look. Mine tend to be more bluish than my other lenses. They're certainly not Leica sharp but they're good lenses. You can darn near do a complete overhaul on one w/ a flat blade screwdriver, and their prices are really low.
I have a friend that recently had an exhibit of classic cameras at our museum recently, and w/ most of the cameras he had sample photos from them. His Argus C4 w/ 50 Cintar lens photo was in Tri-X, darkroom enlarged to something like12x18, and made in 1961. It looked great!
These are right out of the scanner from an Argus C4 w/ cheap Fuji color film.
I think the Volkswagon analogy is spot on. ...
Agreed, particularily in reference to the C, C2, and C3 models being like the original VW Beetel. They are so ugly they're cute and will take massive use and abuse and "keep on ticking".
John Robertson
12-23-2009, 17:57
Neither, they are USA's Argus!!
spystyle
12-23-2009, 18:02
OK, I ordered an AF and a C-Four :) Each was about 20 USD shipped right to my door.
I'm going to see if our resident repair man FallisPhoto will take a look at them and make sure they are ready to go before I start burning film.
They look pretty cool :)
I'll post pics when I have some :)
Cheers,
Craig
Steve Karr
12-23-2009, 18:46
Not only made in America, but made not far from where I grew up in Ann Arbor MI. Leica, no... But a great start into or Back into film. A lens & film, you supply everything else!
spystyle
12-23-2009, 19:12
Like an exposure meter :)
come on, volkswagen? the Argus looks more like an Edsel to me:D
come on, volkswagen? the Argus looks more like an Edsel to me:D
Just slightly more successful, though. And, I think, better suited to its task.
Rob
Mr_Flibble
12-24-2009, 00:47
I don't like the ergonomics of the C-3, but the camera is pretty much indestructible and that Cintar lens ain't bad at all. So yes, it's pretty much like a VW beetle.
Rick - a star of Argus Triple and Quadruple Exposures! :D
Luddite Frank
12-24-2009, 06:21
More like the Model A Ford or basic Chevy six grocery-getter.
Totally American, form dictated by function.
The Cintar 50 mm lens is similar in formula to an Elmar... believe most C-3s had coated optics ?
They were to 35mm what the Instamatic became to the average photographer - put it the hands of the common person.
I have several C-3s, including my father-in-law's with a dead shutter, I'm tempted to pull one out and play with it, but can't see one replacing my screw-mount Leicas.
The C-3 is limited in lens options... there were "clip-in" long-focus elements, as other focal lengths, but they're even more callenging to change than LTM.
The C-44 was designed more along the lines of a Leica clone, with interchangeable lenses.
They're a decent camera.
Have fun!
bmattock
12-24-2009, 06:27
The C-4 was often commonly modified with the "Geiss America" option, which gave it replaceable lenses. If you see a C-4 with a silver handle sticking out of the base of the lens, that's one of them. CQ has a write-up on them.
-doomed-
12-24-2009, 07:08
Like an exposure meter :)
The a2b has a meter of sorts with it's extinction meter next to the vf. It works great with slow films like 25-50 and even 100 is nice in them. My a2b is a fun little camera, I just never use it.
remphoto
12-24-2009, 07:14
The C3 is a solid piece of equipment and could be used to hammer nails if one was so inclined. Ergonomics were awful, though better with a never-ready case. But it was my first real camera as a teenager and gave me the photography bug which still bites me today. I don't use the old brick any more but it has a place of honor on my camera shelf. It took remarkably sharp slides, too, especially in sunlight and with a flashbulb.
Vince Lupo
12-24-2009, 11:27
Wouldn't the Kardon be considered to be 'America's Leica'?
bmattock
12-24-2009, 11:37
Wouldn't the Kardon be considered to be 'America's Leica'?
Or perhaps the Kodak Ektra.
Mr_Flibble
12-24-2009, 14:58
Just expanded my Argus collection with an A model.
....not sure which specific A model until I see it though. ;)
I alwasy thought the Kodak Brownie as America's camera. I can't think of any camera being compared to a Leica. BTW wasn't the VW a German car?:D
BillBingham2
12-24-2009, 15:50
Never had one, never wanted one, never saw the reason for it. Yes it was an American made camera but I get the same feeling as I did when ever I took a ride in my friends Nova, there must be something better. With all the great ideas Americans have I can only look to products like the Argus as the results of marketing people who have no hands on experience in the area they are developing products or marketing to. I just never wanted a brick around my neck.
B2 (;->
The C-4 was often commonly modified with the "Geiss America" option, which gave it replaceable lenses. If you see a C-4 with a silver handle sticking out of the base of the lens, that's one of them. CQ has a write-up on them.
edited: I have a C-4, which is Geiss modified. The 50mm lens is excellent. I said that already.
I picked one up a few weeks ago for $5 :eek:
Took me all of an hour to have it fully working with clean and bright viewfinder and rangefinder. Focus was even easy to turn...
Sorry if the scans are too large, but the Argus lens delivers.
I may have used the 50mm 2.8 and the 35mm lens too.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Argus/56990011.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Argus/56990012.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Argus/56990027.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Argus/56990004.jpg
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t261/raidamin/Argus/56990007.jpg
spystyle
12-24-2009, 19:39
Nice shooting Raid :) As always I enjoy your shots!
As for large scans, it's no problem - if you use the FireFox web browser you can right click a large image and choose "view image" from the menu, it will shrink the image to match your screen resolution.
You can also use postimage.org to post your pics, it shrinks them too.
Cheers,
Craig
Nice shooting Raid :) As always I enjoy your shots!
As for large scans, it's no problem - if you use the FireFox web browser you can right click a large image and choose "view image" from the menu, it will shrink the image to match your screen resolution.
You can also use postimage.org to post your pics, it shrinks them too.
Cheers,
Craig
Thank you, Craig.
I will try out these options.
I need to make a trip to Florida so I can get some boat shots like your Raid.
Nice work..
I friend of mine back in High School discovered a rather unique advantage to the dorky RF coupling on the C-3. If you "mis-align" the gear teeth by two (I think, but maybe one) in the proper direction you end up with a coupled RF that corrects for the infrared focus shift.
Also, I believe the statement that C-3 lenses are all coated is probably correct. I can't remember seeing one with an uncoated lens in the quarter century I worked behind the counter in camera specialty stores. I have seen uncoated lenses on the earlier C and C2 versions. There are quite a number of variants of "the brick":
http://arguscg.tripod.com/id11.html
The C-4 was often commonly modified with the "Geiss America" option, which gave it replaceable lenses. If you see a C-4 with a silver handle sticking out of the base of the lens, that's one of them. CQ has a write-up on them.
... not to be confused with Argus' own interchangeable lens C-4 variant called the C-44.
I need to make a trip to Florida so I can get some boat shots like your Raid.
Nice work..
Thank you, Colyn.
I make use of whatever is available to me,and the outside of the fish market turned out to be very good for photography.
... not to be confused with Argus' own interchangeable lens C-4 variant called the C-44.
I have both, and both are a pain in the waahoo for changing lenses.
Also, I believe the statement that C-3 lenses are all coated is probably correct.
I sold one on eBay awhile back that had the uncoated lens. The early models from 1938-mid 40's were uncoated..
About 10 years ago my roommate and I walked into Pro Camera in Charlottesville, VA, my college town back then. I was a regular at that place - think I was there to buy film or something. Bill Moretz, owner of Pro Camera, jokingly asks my roommate if he wanted to buy a camera. "I only have a dollar in my pocket, if you have one for sale at that price, I'll buy it."
Bill smiles, walks to the backroom, and a minute or two later emerges with an Argus C-3. The transaction was made with a handshake, both parties laughing.
spystyle
12-26-2009, 08:56
Hey my Argus C4 came in the mail today, it's in mint condition as is it's leather ever-ready case. If I didn't know any better I'd think it was only a few years old. It must have been in safe dry storage for many years. It even has a little skylight filter :) All is marked "made in USA", it's quite gorgeous :) It's very big too - the fixed fifty lens is also very big, it protrudes like a zoom lens. And the camera is heavy - this is a serious machine for a mere 20 bucks, I like it :)
I'll take some pics of it later when I'm done with my work :)
dazedgonebye
12-26-2009, 09:04
Just received a C3 as part of a lot of 9 cameras. I've got it loaded and need to have some fun with it.
I handed it to my wife, no camera person is she, and asked, "What do you think the nickname for this camera might be?" She said, without hesitation, "The Brick."
Nailed it on the first try.
spystyle
12-26-2009, 17:35
Sweet, I figured why not and ordered a C3 as well :) In the meantime I have taken photos of my Argus C-Four CLICK (http://tinypic.com/a/1ivrn/1) to see
More cameras and lenses can be seen HERE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/79594440@N00/), including evil SLRs :)
ChrisPlatt
12-26-2009, 17:53
I liked my C4, though the shutter was quite loud.
Chris
I think this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Argus_C3.jpg
is right up there with this:
http://www.rainforestwoodies.com/img/one/assembly/12-700.jpg
:D :D :D
To me the Argus has a rather home made look which I like ... I can see some kid arriving home from school, plonking it on the table in front of his parents and proclaiming with delight ... " Mom, Dad, look what we made in 'shop' today!"
(hmmm ... Raid must have posted some images in this thread ... I seem to be having to scroll across the page as I type!)
Sorry, Keith.It was me again.
-doomed-
12-26-2009, 18:50
Keith, that Pontiac is a lovely specimen of a customized woody, maybe 40's American cars aren't your thing. That car comes from a time when America built cool cars with style ,rather than importing holdens and rebranding them as gto's. The argus may be ugly but nowhere near being associated with the Pontiac outside of being relativley close by date of manufacture.
Sorry, Keith.It was me again.
ah , so thats the cause, i was just about to look for a super wide screen:D
Keith, that Pontiac is a lovely specimen of a customized woody, maybe 40's American cars aren't your thing. That car comes from a time when America built cool cars with style ,rather than importing holdens and rebranding them as gto's. The argus may be ugly but nowhere near being associated with the Pontiac outside of being relativley close by date of manufacture.
That 'woodie' is just the coolest looking vehicle I agree ... and the only thing that would make it better would be an Argus in the glovebox!
I have been very tempted to get a 'brick' over the last couple of years and just may do so now! :D
-doomed-
12-26-2009, 20:29
Saw one recently at my local camera shop it truly resembles an actual brick with chromed corners, to fit that Pontiac I'd like to see the brick engine turned on all sides, or pinstriped Von dutch style. Low price and large amounts of surface area make one think of all manners of ridiculous embelishment.
Yes, in the sense that the Kardon was a straight-up Leica copy, originally intended to fill the gap left by WWII, but per my earlier post, I would still consider the Ektra & Foton to be true holders of the title as they were the only serious American efforts to compete head-to-head w/Leitz & Zeiss Ikon.
Wouldn't the Kardon be considered to be 'America's Leica'?
:) Argus,the preferred camera of "girl" reporters such as Polly Perkins.
yours
FPJ
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346156/
spystyle
12-27-2009, 09:32
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg252/TheTimeTraveller/skycaptain/PollyPerkinsCamera640.jpg
spystyle
12-28-2009, 06:34
I have a Leica question -
While I have never handled a Leica, I was very impressed when handling my mint condition Argus C-four. Is a Leica really 1000 dollars nicer? If I handled a Leica would it be so nice that I'd find the Argus to be a toy?
I've got to try one of these mystical "Leicas" - however, when people refer to "magical Leicas" they aren't really talking about just any old "Leica" brand cameras - they are specifically referring to the "M" series right?
I must try a "Leica M" ... I must know why Leica has such a cult following ...
Hello:
LTM or Leica Thread Mount cameras, known as Barnack Leicas, are the original Leicas. They are considered more elegant, by some, than the larger, successor, M - series bayonet lens mount Leicas. Both have a cult following. Leitz lenses are held to be special and both LTM and M series cameras can share the same lenses (LTM lenses fit the M cameras with adapters).
If you wish to check out the Leica mystique, purchase a summicron and a leica to mount it.
yours
FPJ
Papa Smurf
12-28-2009, 06:56
come on, volkswagen? the Argus looks more like an Edsel to me:D
Hey, do not knock the Edsel. I believe that the other day on the Military Chanel, I saw a film clip of Anwar Sadat traveling in an Edsel. He was a cool dude, like so many great men in history, just out of step with the times. :bang:
goamules
12-28-2009, 18:46
I bought my son an Argus brick for his birthday about a year ago. He didn't use it until I started shooting my Canon IVSB ("leica type"). I gave him a roll of color 200 speed and we were both surprised when the roll was developed at how nice the camera shot.
It's not ergonomic, it looks klunky, and the aperture control is difficult to set. The shutter must be cocked each shot, and if you let the cocker remain under your finger you can mess up the release. To wind you have to press a silly release button first.
But know what? Every shot came out fine from a camera I paid $9 for. So that's what the Argus is; a cheap camera that worked well then, and can still work well. Without having to "...budget in a CLA..." that Leicas AND Feds seem to need most of the time.
Hey, do not knock the Edsel
OK, it looks like a very small IRS building then:p
BillBingham2
12-28-2009, 20:43
Hey, do not knock the Edsel
OK, it looks like a very small IRS building then:p
I was thinking an FBI building under Mrs. Hoover.......
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
12-28-2009, 20:55
I have a Leica question -......Is a Leica really 1000 dollars nicer? ...
Depends upon what you want to do. If you're talking about a camera you can slip into your pocket, yup and old IIIa will do that. You can find an old Leica with a quite acceptable lens for well under $1000 USD. Heck, you can get a fine M with a used CV lens for under that too. With a bit of focus (pardon the pun) you can take great pictures with an Argus.
If I handled a Leica would it be so nice that I'd find the Argus to be a toy?...
I would not use the term toy, but definitely lesser quality. While they feel very different, the Barnack and the Ms both blend into my hand very nicely. So does a Nikon S2/3/P so it's not just Leica Lust, I can adapt to many cameras, never have the few times I've held an Argus.
.. I must know why Leica has such a cult following ...
It is a slippery slope, beware. There are hundreds of good camera models out there, dozens of great ones. Thousands of different lenses and hundreds of world class ones too. Don't get tied up in the finding the best in the world. Find what works for you. You might find it's a Leica, perhaps a Canon, a Nikon, an Olympus or maybe even an Argus.
My father always said that a good photographer could take great pictures with any camera. But a good camera made it a lot easier.
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
12-28-2009, 20:56
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg252/TheTimeTraveller/skycaptain/PollyPerkinsCamera640.jpg
Great shot, though it's backwards.........
Perhaps Polly got the only left handed Argus ever made?
B2 (;->
Jonnyfez
12-29-2009, 06:17
Hello from Maine :)
I just recently noticed Argus and discovered they are from America. This is after I already studied Russian cameras and German cameras. I wonder, are we Americans very proud of old Argus cameras?
I'm thinking of using an Argus "A" and a hand held meter, I just might do it :) The "C" looks good too.
Is Argus America's Leica, America's FED, or something else?
Thanks :)
Craig
Hello (also from Maine),
I'm a Leica M shooter who enjoys devolving (are we not men?) from time to time. Last year it was Kodak Hawkeye Brownies. Recently I rummaged through Mom's attic and dug out the C3 that my father gave her in the 1950s. It's been sitting on my desk for a month or so. Shutter speeds were wonky. Got the itch to put it back into service so I followed the procedures at this site:
http://www.arguscg.org/manuals/c3/gaon-repair/
Very simple and a lot of fun. Fascinating to learn how these work. Satisfying as well. Wouldn't try this on my M6 but happy to give it a go on my Argus. Now to load it up and shoot with it.
As for analogies...how 'bout Leica is to Martin guitars what Argus is to a Harmony? Country of origin doesn't work. Hmmm...Leica is to Omega Speedmaster as Argus is to a Timex.
Doesn't matter to me actually. They all have their own merits.
Luddite Frank
12-29-2009, 21:01
All this talk has caused me to go off in search of an Argus "A".
Found a decent one today, in a well-worn eveready case; still had a roll of Tri-X - 20 exposure in it !
" Is it America's Leica ? "
Well, yes and no...
In terms of sophistication of design & material, "no"... it's no where near a Leica.
In terms of introducing "miniature photography" to large numbers of people, "yes", it's very much like Oscar Barnack's cameras.
The Argus A was the first 35mm camera offered by the International Radio Company, of Ann-Arbor, Michigan. It was a sturdy bakelite camera that looked very similar to a Leica Standard, A or B. It featured a fixed-mount collapsible lens ( 50 mm f:4,5), mounted in a leaf-type self-cocking shutter, with speeds of T-B-25-50-100-150, and apertures of 4.5 - 6.3 - 9 - 12.7 - 18.
It used daylight-loading cassettes, had a top-mounted exposure counter, knob-advance with automatic stop. Oh, and it had a removeable back, and did not require special trimming of the leader.
In terms of appearance and function, it was quite similar to the Leica B, which was a "Standard" fitted with a Compur leaf-shutter.
The Argus A was small, light, very affordable, and produced decent pictures for the price.
The Leica is a much more sophisticated machine, offering higher quality optics, more shutter speeds, and eventually interchangable lenses and a rangefinder.
It was also ten times the price of the Argus A.
I have spent the evening cleaning my Argus A, and look forward to shooting a test roll. I can't see it replacing my Leica III as an everyday shooter, but if it produces decent images, I will use it occasionally.
Argus after the A looked less and less like the screw-mount Leica, but also evolved into more sophisticated cameras in their own right.
It's kind of like comparing an entry-level Chevrolet to a fully-loaded Mercedes: both will get you from point A to point B; the difference is in the ammenties.
I will post some test shots from my Argus A when they come back from Wally-World.
Regards,
Luddite Frank
Al Patterson
12-29-2009, 21:14
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.
Al Patterson
12-29-2009, 21:15
Great shot, though it's backwards.........
Perhaps Polly got the only left handed Argus ever made?
B2 (;->
IIRC, that was the only C3 to ever count DOWN how many pictures remain on the roll.
spystyle
12-30-2009, 06:23
...
My father always said that a good photographer could take great pictures with any camera. But a good camera made it a lot easier.
B2 (;->
That's an excellent quote :)
Ken Rockwell says that too (click (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm))
Then Michael Reichmann rebuttals him (click (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml))
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
12-30-2009, 06:25
... (Argus C3 repair)
http://www.arguscg.org/manuals/c3/gaon-repair/
...
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.
spystyle
12-30-2009, 13:51
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.
FallisPhoto
01-01-2010, 11:08
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:
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs19/f/2007/255/c/4/C_3__C_4__and_auxilliaries_by_FallisPhoto.jpg
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
FallisPhoto
01-01-2010, 11:39
come on, volkswagen? the Argus looks more like an Edsel to me:D
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
01-02-2010, 08:42
...just received my C3 in the mail today and it's in poor shape...
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
01-02-2010, 13:38
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.
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
01-05-2010, 21:48
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.
BillBingham2
01-05-2010, 22:13
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 (;->
burninfilm
01-05-2010, 23:12
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.
bmattock
01-06-2010, 03:37
Just saw this thread, so I thought I'd mention a few things.
That was outstanding, thank you!
Pompiere
01-06-2010, 05:47
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.
... not to be confused with Argus' own interchangeable lens C-4 variant called the C-44.
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
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.