Argus C3 frame spacing

[Kyle M.]

So yeah I'm actually shooting with, or trying to shoot with a C3. Shutter speeds seem fine, did a little tweaking to the RF adjustment and all seemed good. I ran a test roll through it today and the only issue seems to be very little to no space between frames. None are overlapping but some are butted up against one another and the farthest ones apart are maybe half what I'm used to in a 35mm if that. Now this is a very simple camera and there's not a whole lot going on inside there, I've read the manual but I suppose it's possible I'm doing something wrong. At first I thought maybe how far I turned the advance before I released the lock would change it but it's obviously geared so that it will still lock at a fixed point.

Example if you hold the lock over and rotate the advance just far enough to get past the catch or if you rotate it a 1/4, or 1/2 turn and release the lock it will still lock after a fixed amount of rotation which I assume is exactly 35/36 of a turn of the counter. I could be missing something but I don't really see a way to adjust this. Anyone else out there shoot with a C3 and know anything about this problem?

 

[shutterfinger]

Wiki shows the model made from 1939 to 1966. I'm not familiar with the camera beyond name.
I have encountered a similar problem with 120 cameras. The problem is film thickness was reduced sometime in the 1980's. I have not measured 135 film thickness. Fuji is 3.5 mil thick while Kodak and Ilford are 4.5 mil thick. Fuji film will have spacing issues where Kodak and Ilford do not. The solution for roll film holders is to increase the thickness of the take up roller by .008 to .012 inch ( 2 to 3 layers of film thickness). Film does not wind up on the takeup roller but passes over it and the increased thickness requires more film to be mover across the film plane. I don't think a 35mm camera transport system can be modified beyond using an extra layer or two of film on the takeup spool. It can be taped or glued onto the spool leaving the slot open for the film leader. What can be done will depend on camera design.
Another possibility is gear wear in the advance mechanism. if gear wear is the case then another body may be the ticket.

A search for Argus C3 repair manual resulted in this site http://www.arguscg.org/manuals/c3/
I suggest following the instructions in the Army Service Manual and clean/lube the wind gears first.

 

[DWThomas]

Funny this should come up, as I have a set of negatives from the Argust 17th Argus Day festivities right here at my elbow. I think what you are seeing is a larger than typical film gate/frame mask, whatever you want to call it. The sprocket roller inside stops hard against a dog projecting down into the case, so it's either correct, 8 sprocket holes worth, or you would skip an entire frame (or integral number of frames). It's not like some of the paper backed roll film cameras where there is a friction roller metering the film travel. I did once have mine skip an extra sprocket hole occasionally because the roller with the teeth was binding badly, but a CLA cured that.

On the negatives sitting in front of me, the image appears to be a good 37 mm long (the standard frame is 36, so there is a millimeter of space stolen right there). It was pretty typical of cameras to only show about 95% or so of the theoretical image in the viewfinder -- to allow for slide mounts -- or amuse the designers. So in theory you should be getting everything you see in the viewfinder. (If you can see it -- that viewfinder seems a lot smaller today than back in 1957 when I was 16!!!)

 

[Kyle M.]

Funny this should come up, as I have a set of negatives from the Argust 17th Argus Day festivities right here at my elbow. I think what you are seeing is a larger than typical film gate/frame mask, whatever you want to call it. The sprocket roller inside stops hard against a dog projecting down into the case, so it's either correct, 8 sprocket holes worth, or you would skip an entire frame (or integral number of frames). It's not like some of the paper backed roll film cameras where there is a friction roller metering the film travel. I did once have mine skip an extra sprocket hole occasionally because the roller with the teeth was binding badly, but a CLA cured that.

On the negatives sitting in front of me, the image appears to be a good 37 mm long (the standard frame is 36, so there is a millimeter of space stolen right there). It was pretty typical of cameras to only show about 95% or so of the theoretical image in the viewfinder -- to allow for slide mounts -- or amuse the designers. So in theory you should be getting everything you see in the viewfinder. (If you can see it -- that viewfinder seems a lot smaller today than back in 1957 when I was 16!!!)

It never occured to me until you mentioned it, but you may very well be onto something with the size of the frame mask. I'll have to measure it and compare it to some of my other 35mm bodies. I feel like the Q/C on these may not have been amazing or maybe it's something else like a film thickness thing? I was using Eastman Double-X movie film for my test so who knows. Maybe 35mm film thickness standards changed at some point, maybe movie film is thinner? I might just be getting my hopes up but I'll feel like I've had spacing issues in other cameras with the Double-X. I'm going to do a test with a roll of Tmax 100 tomorrow, weather permitting. If all else fails I'll resort to using an X-Acto knife and straight edge to cut my negatives. Despite being quirky and slower than other 35mm cameras this example at least has a mighty sharp lens and is quite fun to use.

 

[shutterfinger]

I have not serviced a clutch/friction metering roll film back. I have serviced many geared with lock paw mechanisms. Doing a complete disassemble,clean, lube reassemble on the on the wind gear train cleared spacing problems 60% of the time.
Dirty gears do not rotate freely. Every gear tooth has play where it meshes with the next in the train and the lock paw has some clearance play as do the film sprockets when mated with the film sprocket holes. Dirty gear train=all gear teeth, lock paw, film sprockets in tight bind against the wind contact edge; clean, smooth running gear train= centered gear teeth as the gears and sprockets move easily and any pressure from advancing alleviates itself by the next gear turning the .0005 to .001 inch needed to relieve the pressure.
A metric ruler will tell if the exposed frame is short or long, or correct.

 

[Kyle M.]

The Argus C3 film transport has only two gears and they simply turn the frame counter. One on the bottom side of the counter wheel and one on the sprocketed spool that meshes with the gear on the counter to turn the counter. There is a metal peg cast as part of the sprocket spool that sticks up and hits a stop pin. Pushing the top of that pin on the outside of the camera releases the stop and allows the sprocketed spool to turn again. The gears could be completely removed and the camera would work just fine. You just wouldn't have a frame counter.

I did a quick measurement comparison between the C3 and my Minolta XG-M. The Minolta has a frame opening 1.413" (35.890mm) wide. The C3 has a frame opening 1.450" (36.83mm) wide a difference of .037" or .94mm. I feel like that couldn't definately cause an issue.

 

[voceumana]

Back in the 60's I used a C3 quite a bit--the frame spacing was always very narrow.

 

[DWThomas]

Well, as I indicated, a frame is eight sprocket holes worth; so about the only way I could envision that having a problem is if a particular film had an anomaly with the sprocket hole punchings. Film thickness should not have any effect on the amount of film metered out (only how many twists of the knob it takes). Also at my elbow is an archive file sheet of the eclipse photos taken last week with my venerable Canon A-1. The exposed frame length is 36mm, and that extra millimeter left between frames looks huge compared with the C-3. (Although in fact, it's not all that much when trying to slice and dice!)

Takeaway, I believe what you have is normal.

The C-3 was in production for about 30 years and there were a zillion variations over that history, so there might even be variations along the way. The bodies were some sort of molded Bakelite piece and I don't think there was any machining done that would size the film gate, so it's pretty much what came out of the mold.

 

[Kyle M.]

Well, as I indicated, a frame is eight sprocket holes worth; so about the only way I could envision that having a problem is if a particular film had an anomaly with the sprocket hole punchings. Film thickness should not have any effect on the amount of film metered out (only how many twists of the knob it takes). Also at my elbow is an archive file sheet of the eclipse photos taken last week with my venerable Canon A-1. The exposed frame length is 36mm, and that extra millimeter left between frames looks huge compared with the C-3. (Although in fact, it's not all that much when trying to slice and dice!)

Takeaway, I believe what you have is normal.

The C-3 was in production for about 30 years and there were a zillion variations over that history, so there might even be variations along the way. The bodies were some sort of molded Bakelite piece and I don't think there was any machining done that would size the film gate, so it's pretty much what came out of the mold.

It may very well be normal, and I can certainly work around it. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong.

 

[Bud Hamblen]

I did a quick measurement comparison between the C3 and my Minolta XG-M. The Minolta has a frame opening 1.413" (35.890mm) wide. The C3 has a frame opening 1.450" (36.83mm) wide a difference of .037" or .94mm. I feel like that couldn't definately cause an issue.

The 1mm difference uses up half the spacing because you only have 2mm nominal between pictures. A little slop could use up the rest. I never quite get overlapping pictures on my C3, but I do have to be more careful when I cut the film strips.