Im not familiar with Argus so forgive me if this is a no brainer but how does image quality compare between Argus brick cameras and Olympus 35 RC, XA, SP etc
Muggins
Junk magnet
Blimey, there's a fascinating comparison!
I have a Brick and a 35RC, and they are really worlds apart to use, but that wasn't the question was it? I think a fair summary might be that the Brick takes much better pictures than you'd expect, whilst the Oly 35 takes the pictures you'd expect of Japanese engineering of the day.
Oh dear, I feel a comparison coming on...
Adrian
I have a Brick and a 35RC, and they are really worlds apart to use, but that wasn't the question was it? I think a fair summary might be that the Brick takes much better pictures than you'd expect, whilst the Oly 35 takes the pictures you'd expect of Japanese engineering of the day.
Oh dear, I feel a comparison coming on...
Adrian
farlymac
PF McFarland
I find the 50mm Cintar more flare prone than the Oly, and not quite as sharp, but pretty close. And the 35mm Sandmar I have seems a bit soft. I haven't tried the 100mm Sandmar yet.
PF
PF
Vics
Mentor
I have a brick (Argus C3?). Do people actually take pictures with these things?
pakeha
Well-known
one can be used as an anchor, one cannot
Sid836
Well-known
I am about to get a second Oly 35RC. It is small, cute and fully featured, and great to carry around. Not to mention that it has an excellent lens.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Argus has a triplet of variable quality. The C3 is def. not the best user Argus, the C4 series is in most respects a better camera.
Some test shots from my last C3:
Note the fringing on OOF areas. It gives an odd look to the boke' quality.
The olympus is an all around better camera, unless you specifically want a piece of history.
Some test shots from my last C3:
Note the fringing on OOF areas. It gives an odd look to the boke' quality.
The olympus is an all around better camera, unless you specifically want a piece of history.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Well, yes.
The (coated) Cintar lens really is quite nice in my opinion (certainly beats the contemporary Kodak Anastigmat/Anastar of the time).
Old poorly processed scan
farlymac
PF McFarland
Comparison Photos
Comparison Photos
Argus 50/3.5 Cintar
Every Which Way But Loose by br1078phot, on Flickr
Olympus 42/2.8 E. Zuiko
8th And Norfolk Bus by br1078phot, on Flickr
I get good results from both.
PF
Comparison Photos
Argus 50/3.5 Cintar
Every Which Way But Loose by br1078phot, on Flickr
Olympus 42/2.8 E. Zuiko
8th And Norfolk Bus by br1078phot, on Flickr
I get good results from both.
PF
Vics
Mentor
I stand corrected and humbled. I'll have to get mine out and see if I can load it.
L David Tomei
Well-known
The Olympus 35 RC is certainly an excellent little camera that was a pleasure to use. Like my Leica Z2x, it is small and convenient to keep loaded and handy in pocket or glove box in the car.
However, the Argus C3 and Matchmatic are an entirely different species of camera. Personally I cannot understand the fact that the C3's are an unending butt of jokes when their performance and reliability is comparable to other cameras costing ten times as much these days. It is quirky if not down right weird in its design. However, the coated Cintar lens is an excellent lens and the oddly designed shutter is the easiest to cla and maintain and is utterly reliable. The C models are clearly not ergonomic paragons but they sold more than any other camera for decades (more than 2 million) and that wasn't an accident. The camera market of the 1940's and 50's was a hard place to survive as demonstrated by the long list of failed companies but the Argus C3's remained on top. Their accessory viewfinders too are comparable to those made by any other company and superior IMO to those made by Leica or Kodak. One thing is certain, if you spend time with a C3, you will learn the basics of photography and your results will be images of high quality.
Bottom line: These cameras are very different and the choice between the two depends heavily on personal preference. David
However, the Argus C3 and Matchmatic are an entirely different species of camera. Personally I cannot understand the fact that the C3's are an unending butt of jokes when their performance and reliability is comparable to other cameras costing ten times as much these days. It is quirky if not down right weird in its design. However, the coated Cintar lens is an excellent lens and the oddly designed shutter is the easiest to cla and maintain and is utterly reliable. The C models are clearly not ergonomic paragons but they sold more than any other camera for decades (more than 2 million) and that wasn't an accident. The camera market of the 1940's and 50's was a hard place to survive as demonstrated by the long list of failed companies but the Argus C3's remained on top. Their accessory viewfinders too are comparable to those made by any other company and superior IMO to those made by Leica or Kodak. One thing is certain, if you spend time with a C3, you will learn the basics of photography and your results will be images of high quality.
Bottom line: These cameras are very different and the choice between the two depends heavily on personal preference. David
Roger Hicks
Mentor
No, it was because they were cheap.
They hardly sold at all outside the US. There's a reason for that, too.
Cheers,
R.
L David Tomei
Well-known
... but at $65-75 in 1952, were they really that cheap? That is comparable to $400-$500 today. The popular Brownie Hawkeye Flash sold for $7. The C3 was up against cameras like the Bantam RF which was technologically superior, I think, but sold for about the same as a C3. I still think that the popularity of the C3 wasn't entirely due to low price. David
PS: I think it was the fact that they were different, looked "mechanical" with their exposed wheels and gears and dials that belied the simplicity of what was hidden in the Bakelite box. Later color coding of speeds and f stops made it a bit easier shoot.
PS: I think it was the fact that they were different, looked "mechanical" with their exposed wheels and gears and dials that belied the simplicity of what was hidden in the Bakelite box. Later color coding of speeds and f stops made it a bit easier shoot.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
The C3 was actually remarkably cheap. In the pre-war years it was basically the only camera in its price bracket that offered flash synchronization and coupled rangefinder focussing - and worked. So while not "cheap" it was still a bargain.
In the postwar years it really was cheap. In 1959 the Standard C3 listed for $39, which made it basically the cheapest rangefinder you could buy in the U.S. and it cost half as much as the next cheapest camera with interchangeable lenses (Exa I think, or the Olympus Ace). In that bracket its competition was Japanese cameras like the Samoca and Kalimar A. The problem was that if you spent $10 more you could get a Japanese camera with a 2.8 lens, 1/500 shutter speeds, parallax compensating viewfinder, etc. etc. Most people were willing to spend the extra $10 for a lot more camera.
As for why they didn't sell in Europe? It's probably because Argus could barely fill orders at home when the C3 was still up to date. Well that and that during that same period of time Europe had bigger problems to deal with than buying American cameras.
Even though we tend to think of the Argus for its post war reputation as an inexpensive, outdated camera for those who knew nothing about photography - the truth is in the pre war era, it was cutting edge. In 1939 there was nothing else you could buy for the price that equalled the C3's features. The big problem with the C3 was that from 1939 through 1958 it was never updated in any meaningful way save for coating the optics starting in the late 1940s. The changes made in 1958 do improve the camera, but it was far too little to bring the camera up to date.
The primary problem was the unique shutter - it wasn't possible to use a lens faster than f3.5 without vignetting (Argus apparently tested this), and so far as I can see there would have been no practical way to incorporate automatic shutter cocking given the left handed film advance and the layout of the shutter. A bigger viewfinder probably would have been easy, but I'm sure Argus saw their future with the C4 and probably didn't want their own products competing with each other.
The 1958 changes actually don't do anything to bring the camera up to date, they simply make it a better C3. The shutter button is much larger and softer in operation (in fact it is basically like a permanent soft release), the cocking lever is sturdier, the new lens barrel has built in shading and accepts series V filters. The late model C3s are the best user wise IMO.
In the postwar years it really was cheap. In 1959 the Standard C3 listed for $39, which made it basically the cheapest rangefinder you could buy in the U.S. and it cost half as much as the next cheapest camera with interchangeable lenses (Exa I think, or the Olympus Ace). In that bracket its competition was Japanese cameras like the Samoca and Kalimar A. The problem was that if you spent $10 more you could get a Japanese camera with a 2.8 lens, 1/500 shutter speeds, parallax compensating viewfinder, etc. etc. Most people were willing to spend the extra $10 for a lot more camera.
As for why they didn't sell in Europe? It's probably because Argus could barely fill orders at home when the C3 was still up to date. Well that and that during that same period of time Europe had bigger problems to deal with than buying American cameras.
Even though we tend to think of the Argus for its post war reputation as an inexpensive, outdated camera for those who knew nothing about photography - the truth is in the pre war era, it was cutting edge. In 1939 there was nothing else you could buy for the price that equalled the C3's features. The big problem with the C3 was that from 1939 through 1958 it was never updated in any meaningful way save for coating the optics starting in the late 1940s. The changes made in 1958 do improve the camera, but it was far too little to bring the camera up to date.
The primary problem was the unique shutter - it wasn't possible to use a lens faster than f3.5 without vignetting (Argus apparently tested this), and so far as I can see there would have been no practical way to incorporate automatic shutter cocking given the left handed film advance and the layout of the shutter. A bigger viewfinder probably would have been easy, but I'm sure Argus saw their future with the C4 and probably didn't want their own products competing with each other.
The 1958 changes actually don't do anything to bring the camera up to date, they simply make it a better C3. The shutter button is much larger and softer in operation (in fact it is basically like a permanent soft release), the cocking lever is sturdier, the new lens barrel has built in shading and accepts series V filters. The late model C3s are the best user wise IMO.
charjohncarter
Mentor
I find the Olympus 35RC and all other compact cameras from Japan not sturdy (but optically good). The Argus C-3 is, well, a brick.
benlees
Well-known
Sums it up nicely. the first time I held an Argus I thought it might be solid! I use a few fixed lens RF's and they all make nice pictures but they all sort of tell you: "Be gentle"
L David Tomei
Well-known
The C3 was actually remarkably cheap. In the pre-war years it was basically the only camera in its price bracket that offered flash synchronization and coupled rangefinder focusing - and worked. So while not "cheap" it was still a bargain.
In the postwar years it really was cheap. In 1959 the Standard C3 listed for $39, which made it basically the cheapest rangefinder you could buy in the U.S. and it cost half as much as the next cheapest camera with interchangeable lenses (Exa I think, or the Olympus Ace). In that bracket its competition was Japanese cameras like the Samoca and Kalimar A. The problem was that if you spent $10 more you could get a Japanese camera with a 2.8 lens, 1/500 shutter speeds, parallax compensating viewfinder, etc. etc. Most people were willing to spend the extra $10 for a lot more camera."
____________
Actually, the C3 cost $78.50 in 1949. The price that you mention above was the 1959 price of the C3 which was discounted due to the introduction of the more "advanced" Matchmatic which, BTW, cost $78.00. All the Argus C3 models were indeed rather expensive. compared to other rf cameras that you mention.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
tunalegs said:
____________
Actually, the C3 cost $78.50 in 1949. The price that you mention above was the 1959 price of the C3 which was discounted due to the introduction of the more "advanced" Matchmatic which, BTW, cost $78.00. All the Argus C3 models were indeed rather expensive. compared to other rf cameras that you mention.
Here's one from 1949 that lists the price as $60.50 - which includes the ever-ready case and the flash, which were basically always bundled into the C3's list price. http://www.flickr.com/photos/camerawiki/6111034907/
The only U.S. made rangefinder that was cheaper than the Argus C3 in this era was the Ciro 35 which cost $39.95 (camera only). Argus stressed price and that they were selling a whole kit in many of their ads. Kodak tried to compete with the 35 RF but could never quite get the price down to the C3's level. The Pony was cheaper but didn't include an RF.
Terry Christian
Established
To all the naysayers who look down upon the lowly "Brick," you really don't know what you're missing! Here's the story of how I bought my first C3:
One of our favorite cities to visit is St. Louis, and we always stay in the picturesque Soulard area just south of downtown. A few years ago, we were visiting and it was our first time exploring the antique stores on Cherokee St. I'd heard of the Argus C3 and thought, "it's so ugly it's cute," but had never seen one until I unexpectedly found one in an upstairs display of one of those antique stores. The strange dials and gears looked weird to me, but as far as I could tell, it was working and the shutter was firing just fine. So I bought it and took it back to our guesthouse room. That night, I was able to download the manual from my laptop, and spent some time familiarizing myself with the controls of the Argus.
The next morning, I woke up bright and early and decided to take my newly bought C3 out on a photowalk with some Legacy Pro 100 (rebranded Fuji Neopan Acros) in it. Armed also with my trusty external light meter, I wandered up and down the streets of the Soulard, snapping away, and occasionally smacking myself in the forehead when I discovered I'd neglected to focus or to set the right shutter speed for the exposure. When I got home from the trip, I developed the film and was astounded to find that everything was perfectly exposed and I had way more than my usual number of keepers on the roll! What was more, I was pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and clarity of the images. Here's some samples from that roll:
2010-10-24C003 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
2010-10-24C010 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
2010-10-24C028 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
2010-10-24C036 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
One of our favorite cities to visit is St. Louis, and we always stay in the picturesque Soulard area just south of downtown. A few years ago, we were visiting and it was our first time exploring the antique stores on Cherokee St. I'd heard of the Argus C3 and thought, "it's so ugly it's cute," but had never seen one until I unexpectedly found one in an upstairs display of one of those antique stores. The strange dials and gears looked weird to me, but as far as I could tell, it was working and the shutter was firing just fine. So I bought it and took it back to our guesthouse room. That night, I was able to download the manual from my laptop, and spent some time familiarizing myself with the controls of the Argus.
The next morning, I woke up bright and early and decided to take my newly bought C3 out on a photowalk with some Legacy Pro 100 (rebranded Fuji Neopan Acros) in it. Armed also with my trusty external light meter, I wandered up and down the streets of the Soulard, snapping away, and occasionally smacking myself in the forehead when I discovered I'd neglected to focus or to set the right shutter speed for the exposure. When I got home from the trip, I developed the film and was astounded to find that everything was perfectly exposed and I had way more than my usual number of keepers on the roll! What was more, I was pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and clarity of the images. Here's some samples from that roll:
2010-10-24C003 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
2010-10-24C010 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
2010-10-24C028 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
2010-10-24C036 by Terry Christian Photo, on Flickr
hausen
Well-known
Terry, those last two are super shots. Especially the broom shot. Lovely tones.