Love for "The Brick" in the Washington Post

Yup, I used my dad's old C3 as my first camera in 1968-1969 or so. Occasional double exposures, and every now and then the back opened itself. On the other hand, the lens was sharp enough, I learned to set exposures from the film instruction sheet. For my birthday in 69 or 70, my parents gave me a Minolta Auto-pak-something 126 camera that was not capable of taking a sharp photo in its life. I then took the C3 apart.
 
Mos6502 said:
I have a 1930s C2, and a C3 from 1963. I've searched vainly for a 1966 C3, but as of yet I've never come across one with a serial number that indicates a year of manufacture later than 1964. That final '66 run, if it did in fact happen, must've been very short. I haven't used either camera in years. I have two problems with it: The tiny viewfinder, and the lack of strap lugs. The everyready case is surprisingly compact (compared to some cases out there) but still a bother to leave on the camera. The Cintars are pretty variable in quality. I've had one that was very sharp, and I had one that was so soft in the corners, I have to wonder if they accidentally put one of the elements in backwards at the factory. The shutter in the C3 is a mechanical disaster, a Rube Goldberg contraption, which though it can not be killed by abuse, never worked accurately to begin with. I've read that Argus were well aware that the 1/300 top speed advertised on the dial was a complete fantasy, but for some reason they never renumbered it for a more honest 1/200. Still it's a Classic, and everybody owes it to themselves to run at least one roll through a C3 just for the experience.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a leaf shutter made yet that ever matched its indicated top speed/s. One just learns to compensate for it. On the 50mm Cintar, as I recall those were all matched to the bodies, so if you have a lens from a different camera it might not perform as intended. Or someone could have reversed an element before you got it, either intentionally, or while cleaning it.

PF
 
I'd actually be surprised if any C3 shutter matched any indicated speed on its dial. Its perfectly designed for imprecision. I'm not being harsh, this is the truth. But I keep in mind that by the end of the 50s, the C3 was astonishingly cheap to buy, and even with its faults, represented an amazing bargain for anybody looking for a 35mm camera. If you look at what was on the market then, the only things less expensive were extremely basic scale focus cameras like the Samoca 35 etc. As for the lens, the camera was as close to mint as one could hope for, I have no doubt it left the factory that way. Lemons happen.
 
I had one. Once. Did not like it all. Horrible ergonomics. The only camera I’ve ever sold.
 
I got one for multiple-exposure use, tri-chromes with color film and a sequence of R, G, B filters. Worked fine, but it is a primitive rig! Cost me $10 used from Camera Show used camera shop on Aurora Ave and about 70th in Seattle, 1983. Still have it...
 
What a weird coincidence. A brick sighting: I’m now just watching the Ip Man 3 movie and at about the 14’50” mark, a gentleman is taking a group picture with a C3 and flash. I believe the movie was set in 1959. Pretty cool.
 
Let us not forget the film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, that feature an Argus C3 prominently and helped revive the cultural memory of this once forgotten gem.
 
And let us not forget little Colin Creevey in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets with his little two tone Argus C3
colin-tout.jpg​


Best,
-Tim
 
Never seen one of these little critters. How is it to handle? Seems very small. Good to know the shutter is "dust-tight"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top