awahlster Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Fine Mike just for pointing out I suck at Math I'm not giving you my Black Pellix with the new mirror. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadillacmike Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 You got a new mirror for your Pellix?? Those are hard to find!!! I wasn't busting your butt... but it's significant that there were FAR more black AE-1s (& Ps) than all CanonFlexes combined and there's always a few of those for sale... Now how about a black FP or FX????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 If the serial numbers are any indication, there were right around 220,000 F-1Ns made(starting at 100001 and running through 313,000ish plus aprox. 8000 LA models). That makes the black AE-1s at least as common as the F-1N, and we know that those aren't exactly hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadillacmike Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 There were only 220,000 or so New F-1s made??? Wow, that's not much compared to 4-5 million AE-1s (Canon sold over 1 million AE-1s in the first 10 months of its existence.) Did the LA F-1s start at LA1xxx or LA0xxx? If they started at LA1xxx (which Canon seems to like - starting with a leading 1 not 0) then the numbers would have had to go into the LA9000 range for there to have been 8,000 of them , and I never saw anything hgher than L7xxx. But then again, I'm no authority (but I do have one of the nicest LA F-1s in existence!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Mike,There's a gentleman over at the Canon FD Yahoo list who has been gathering serial numbers for several years. His lists are available in the files section. The lowest LA number he has recorded is LA0640, and the highest is LA9416. It appears, then, that my 8000 estimate was low, and it's probably closer to 10,000. Also, his lowest regular production number recorded is 100082, and his highest is 312219. Thus, I think that the 220,000 produced estimate is probably pretty reasonable, although it's likely closer to 222,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now