Testing the Argus C3. Also fields.

[Bounty]

The Argus C3 was an American 35mm rangefinder camera produced from 1939 to 1966. Thanks to a simple yet rugged design, a good lens and exceptional durability, it made 35mm photography available to the masses at low cost. Today, they're cheap as piss in the US but hard to come by anywhere else; I imported mine. There may be cheaper and more comfortable cameras but I just can't get enough of the way this thing looks.

The model I have is a Colormatic from somewhere around '56-'58. It's one of the last models before the Standard redesign and lacks some of the speeds of earlier models; it does, however, have colour-coded controls. The inside of the case has instructions on which colour to set the controls at for which type of film, and following those instructions should get you perfect shots on a bright day. Unfortunately the speeds only go up to ISO 64 or thereabouts and I've only got ISO 200 lying around, so I didn't get a chance to try it out.

It lacks most of the luxuries of other rangefinder cameras; there is no integrated rangefinder/viewfinder window, no light meter, no double exposure protection and you need to cock the shutter separately from winding on the film. Even so, it's a very fun piece of equipment to actually use, once you avoid getting your fingers bruised from the lever snapping back.

It also takes some pretty nice pictures.

[Simplicius]

Not bad - that lens does give good results. And having some latitude in the film no doubt helped considerably. It's a pity slow film is neither common nor cheaply had these days.

Also, Belguim looks like that in January? Lucky stiff.

[Bounty]

I'm really surprised about the lens. I'd been warned about vignetting and fuzziness but it's... fine. Of course, it didn't hurt that this was a bright and cloudless day - 1/100 at f/16 worked like a charm.

Also, Belgium looks like that in January? Lucky stiff.

I know the spots that don't look cripplingly depressing

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm really surprised about the lens. I'd been warned about vignetting and fuzziness but it's... fine. Of course, it didn't hurt that this was a bright and cloudless day - 1/100 at f/16 worked like a charm.

Also, Belgium looks like that in January? Lucky stiff.

I know the spots that don't look cripplingly depressing

Nice shots, although I wonder if the horizon on the second picture is skewed on purpose or not? I usually think that griping about horizons is stupid, but to me that shot would be better with a straight horizon. And perhaps a little less sky, although placing the horizon close the middle of the picture is certainly more interesting than the orthodox but boring 1/3 or 2/3 from the top placement.

About the Argus C3: affectionately know as "the Brick". I have never owned one though, since it's little austere feature-wise, but the aesthetics are certainly unique. It's pretty in an ugly sort of way.

I also notice that you seem to be in the early stages of Gear Acquisition Syndrome (abbreviation: GAS), a common disease among camera collectors and retro-photographers. I suffer from a medium case myself, so I know the symptoms. It's fairly manageable as long as you keep strict criteria for your gear purchases, but getting rid of it completely is difficult. I didn't buy any new cameras or lenses for a year, but once I did it was like a relapse of drug addiction or alcoholism; worse than before, that is. Just pray that you never get the really serious form of the disease known as Leicaphilia. Zeissophilia and Nikonism are slightly less dangerous, but they can still cost you a lot of money, and in some cases relationships.

[Bounty]

Nice shots, although I wonder if the horizon on the second picture is skewed on purpose or not?

In-between. I didn't set out to make a shot with a skewered horizon, but I wasn't aiming for a straight one either; the field just slopes up that way, and I was standing on a level drainage lid.

And perhaps a little less sky, although placing the horizon close the middle of the picture is certainly more interesting than the orthodox but boring 1/3 or 2/3 from the top placement.

I haven't figured out the whole composition thing yet (as I'm sure Death can elaborate on at length), I just shoot things that looks right. The second-to-last picture, for example, was just an attempt to get as much sky into the frame as possible with a strip of ground for reference, because it just looked like a nice big sky.

I also notice that you seem to be in the early stages of Gear Acquisition Syndrome (abbreviation: GAS)

Yeah, that boat sailed a while ago

I'm looking at seven cameras right now with two on the short list, and the number is going to balloon once the flea market opens again in April. I'm trying to find my niche for gear; I think 35mm non-Asian sub-professional rangefinder designs from 1930-1960 might be my thing.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I also notice that you seem to be in the early stages of Gear Acquisition Syndrome (abbreviation: GAS), a common disease among camera collectors and retro-photographers. I suffer from a medium case myself, so I know the symptoms. It's fairly manageable as long as you keep strict criteria for your gear purchases, but getting rid of it completely is difficult. I didn't buy any new cameras or lenses for a year, but once I did it was like a relapse of drug addiction or alcoholism; worse than before, that is. Just pray that you never get the really serious form of the disease known as Leicaphilia. Zeissophilia and Nikonism are slightly less dangerous, but they can still cost you a lot of money, and in some cases relationships.

Hey, my therapist said it was fine! Before I told him I couldn't pay for the session due to draining my bank account to buy a prime lens... . [A cheap-ass Sigma no less, damn lack of cash]

Not bad photos, nice and...brown? . Looks like nice weather for Europe in Winter

And perhaps a little less sky, although placing the horizon close the middle of the picture is certainly more interesting than the orthodox but boring 1/3 or 2/3 from the top placement.

I haven't figured out the whole composition thing yet (as I'm sure Death can elaborate on at length), I just shoot things that looks right.

Not at length, there's not enough to comment about .
I jest, I jest. The photos are really nice especially composition wise, they just need a little something extra. (I've been having that problem too recently, I can't make stuff look interesting, and sometimes it's just a matter of a wider frame and making sure you have a good rule of thirds composition or a nice angle or bending down a bit lower).

[Bounty]

It's brown because everything is dead?

they just need a little something extra

That's the whole trick, isn't it? The difference between a photo and a good photo. It's something I'm working on.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's brown because everything is dead?

they just need a little something extra

That's the whole trick, isn't it? The difference between a photo and a good photo. It's something I'm working on.

Tell me if you get any good ideas, techniques or tips. Then tell me where you live. And where the nearest tar pit is. And if there's anyone that might miss you that I should know about.

[Simplicius]

That's the whole trick, isn't it? The difference between a photo and a good photo. It's something I'm working on.

It might just be me, but I've found it useful to look at photos a lot ,and especially photos I like. When I go out and look at potential shots, I find myself thinking "How would someone who knows what he is doing look at this?" and refer to my mental library of images. I think it actually does help me select shots and compose better than I would otherwise.

Landscapes are tricky to do well anyway. Composition becomes more difficult when you are working with large, distant, immovable objects, and it's also tough because great views don't always translate well to film. I'd say even landscapes need a subject or an eyecatch of some kind, and the more interesting detail in the mid- or foreground, the better. It's also easier to compose when you've got stuff nearby to move yourself around, rather than having most of the visual interest in the photo way back toward the horizon.

I'm looking at seven cameras right now with two on the short list, and the number is going to balloon once the flea market opens again in April. I'm trying to find my niche for gear; I think 35mm non-Asian sub-professional rangefinder designs from 1930-1960 might be my thing.

But how do you resolve the dilemma of just which camera to take with you on a jaunt into town?

A cheap-ass Sigma no less, damn lack of cash

A respectable lens with noteworthy features at a low price is a good thing. What made you pick this particular lens?

I've been having that problem too recently, I can't make stuff look interesting, and sometimes it's just a matter of a wider frame and making sure you have a good rule of thirds composition or a nice angle or bending down a bit lower.

Also getting closer, especially with mundane subjects. One should try to show people things that they don't see every day, or in a way they don't see every day. Picking interesting subject matter is also important - some things are too boring to be helped by good composition, whether because they are intrinsically boring, or badly-lit, or whatever.

Speaking of which, since that new lens of yours is human-eye equivalent on a crop sensor, it'll require some extra effort to avoid the 'ordinary' viewpoint. Let me know when you've used it for some photos in earnest; I think use of lenses will have to be the theme of my next crit essay.

[Phantasee]

Belgium sure is pretty in January, B. I liked most of the shots, but I don't think you should be trying to capture big open sky with whatever film you're using. It doesn't turn out as nice as the land, which was hella nice.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I liked most of the shots, but I don't think you should be trying to capture big open sky with whatever film you're using. It doesn't turn out as nice as the land, which was hella nice.

Open cloudless or completely overcast sky can be a problem. Usual ways to deal with it are polarizers and warming filters, but if the sky is completely featureless it usually is not good to take too much of it into the shot. Of course it all depends and composition rules are made for breaking. I personally like shades of blue so I don't usually use warming filters much for landscapes (I might use them for portraits if I did them much), but a polarizer is handy for making the sky tones deeper. Polarizers are necessary even with the "quicker, easier, more seductive" Dark Side of Photography (i.e. digital capture, what else could it mean?) or hybrid (film + scanning), since their effects can't really be replicated in Photoshop.

[Bounty]

The C3 accidentally came back in my luggage rather than my backpack, and it's a little worse for wear - the plastic cover over the accessory shoe shook loose (fortunately, the screw and cover were still in the camera case) and I haven't been able to check if the lens and mechanisms are fine.

With any luck I'll have two rolls of shots from Prague to show by Tuesday.