It just kills me when people complain about the weight of todays DSLRs'.
I'm curious what that comment is based on? As I understand older film SLRs, they did not have nearly the same amount of "stuff" packed into them. They did not need the kind of power modern DSLRs do, so did not need huge battery packs (which is where a lot of weight comes from). Modern electronics are also quite dense, and we pack a LOT of electronics into relatively small packages these days. I've never known film itself to be particularly heavy.
So, if film SLR bodies were heavier than modern DSLR bodies, what, exactly, made them that much heavier?
In terms of weight, my lightest body is a non-interchangeable-lens Petri Rangefinder, then my mum's Pentax Spotmatic isn't far behind, and they're both nice and made of metal.
My EOS 3 is 780g without battery or lens, not far behind my 7D at 820g with no lens (not sure if with battery), the extra weight in them is going to the weathersealing, tough body, drive motor in 3 and those dual digics in the 7D must weight a bit...
Then the Medium Format big boys are Mamiya 645AF and Pentacon 6 at 1.7kg, and the big Soviet Tank Kiev 60 at just over 2kg (P6 and K60 weighed here
with standard lenses).
The pentaprisms are the biggest killer behind metal weathersealed-bodies, Li-batteries and motor drives, the difference in weight between a sensor and a film cartridge is negligible.
Still, none of those are "too heavy" for me. There's definitely times I'd like an M9 (and not just for the IQ and prestige), but I'm generally happy carrying any body around.
Lenses, on the other hand, weigh a lot more (like 2kg for a Zeiss 300mm/4 and 1.1kg for the 180/2.8, with both of them in my bag i'm struggling not matter what body/ies i'm also carrying).