Is Canon capable of making a full frame DSLR that weighs no more than 500g/1.1pound?

The APS-C DSLR 100D weighs 407g with battery and memory card.
In comparison the Sony A7 full frame mirrorless camera weighs 474g with battery and memory card.

Is Canon capable of making a full frame DSLR that weighs maximum 90g more than the 100D? e.g. put a full frame sensor in to the 100D body, get rid of the built-in flash and replace the fixed screen with a swivel screen.

If there is such a product, I would be seriously tempted considering the advantage of DSLR vs mirrorless camera : longer battery life and better AF performance of tracking moving subject. In addition the relatively bigger size of DSLR actually makes it easier to hold when paired with long telephoto lens.

They might have the technology to do it, although perhaps not in the way you suggest, by squeezing a full frame sensor into an existing small crop body. But perhaps they could make it lighter, but as of now their market is not going in that direction. They still hold full frame bodies as advanced hobbiest or pro items and still make them full featured and therefore somewhat heavier bodies. Its been posited by many that eventually the crop body will go away and full frame sensors will be available in all levels of canon dslr. Perhaps as part of that evolution you might get something closer to what you want, but I wouldnt hold your breath for it happening anytime soon.

still wont be able to make smaller lenses due to flange distance. I think it's always better to have a shorter flange distance like sony, but I am not a lens expert by any means. It just makes more sense since you can always build longer, but not closer to the sensor.

A camera weighing between 1 and 2 lbs doesn't really phase me much, it would be more around ergonomics (placement of buttons, the size of the grip, etc). Given all other factors around photography and the equipment I use, the weight is probably near the bottom of my priority list of factors that drive my purchases.

I am sure Canon could make a FF equivalent with the size of the 100D, but I don't find the 100D very pleasing to use across an extended period of time.

I would rather have a heavier camera with proper ergonomics and controls than a lighter one with neither.

Numenorean wrote in post #16426510
I would rather have a heavier camera with proper ergonomics and controls than a lighter one with neither.

agreed. Wonder why people don't understand that. A 70-200 or larger would seriously be weird behind a small body.

starkyrulz wrote in post #16426558
agreed. Wonder why people don't understand that. A 70-200 or larger would seriously be weird behind a small body.

A 70-200/2.8 + a flash on top of my 350D gives an imbalanced beast. But is comfortable if mounted to the 5D2. Balance and ergonomy is more important than total weight.

I'm also in the better ergonomics/controls over weight savings boat, at least for a large portion of my shooting.

I wouldn't mind having something small and light for some shooting, but if I'm going to have the bigger/heavy body anyways the small one is going to have to be inexpensive for me to consider. Like the current price on the EOS M(if it had 70D AF I'd get it now) would be fine for me but the price of then new A7(R) is a bit much for something that can't replace my DSLR.

Charlie wrote in post #16426453
still wont be able to make smaller lenses due to flange distance. I think it's always better to have a shorter flange distance like sony, but I am not a lens expert by any means. It just makes more sense since you can always build longer, but not closer to the sensor.

The increased angle that the light hits the senors with shorter flange distance isn't better. I'm also not a lens expert so I don't know how much of a difference it actually makes, just that it can.

I can't wait to see what the offerings are down the road when senor based AF is faster(it's already better in all other ways) and things like electronic mirrors are used. Or how much smaller/lighter a fast supertelephoto will be for a mirroless camera assuming they actually make them.

pwm2 wrote in post #16426593
A 70-200/2.8 + a flash on top of my 350D gives an imbalanced beast. But is comfortable if mounted to the 5D2. Balance and ergonomy is more important than total weight.

This is purely my own thoughts/experience YMMV:
Just for fun I mounted the 120-300F2.8 EX on an old EOS 50E (Elan IIE) just to see how it feels, and unwieldy comes to mind. Next up, on the 10D w/ BG-ED3. This is a lot better. Lastly on a 1D Mark IV. Ahh that's awesome. Sure it weights ~10 lbs but is balanced very well considering. So point here is the grips (aftermarket or integrated) acts as a counterweight on some of the longer lenses and makes it much more of a pleasure to shoot with. I can't speak to the 70-200 F2.8 lenses, but a 24-70 F2.8L feels just about weightless to me.

In the film days, Canon made the very popular AE-1, which weighed 590g for body only (and no film inside). The T3i is 515g. The 70D is 675g.

The Olympus OM-1, which set the trend for compact film SLRs was 510g, but was all metal, and without any advantage of modern composite materials.

If I recall correctly, many will say the Pentax ME wins the game for most lightweight film SLR, 460g. The OM-10 was 450g.

genjurok wrote in post #16426437
The APS-C DSLR 100D weighs 407g with battery and memory card.
In comparison the Sony A7 full frame mirrorless camera weighs 474g with battery and memory card.

Is Canon capable of making a full frame DSLR that weighs maximum 90g more than the 100D? e.g. put a full frame sensor in to the 100D body, get rid of the built-in flash and replace the fixed screen with a swivel screen.

If there is such a product, I would be seriously tempted considering the advantage of DSLR vs mirrorless camera : longer battery life and better AF performance of tracking moving subject. In addition the relatively bigger size of DSLR actually makes it easier to hold when paired with long telephoto lens.

I will purchase one if Canon make this camera. hopefully can make more pancake prime like 40mm to matching with it.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #16426739
I'm also in the better ergonomics/controls over weight savings boat, at least for a large portion of my shooting.

This. Small bodies just don't feel comfortable. I love the size and shape of the 5DIII either with the tiny 40mm pancake or the less tiny 70-200 f2.8.

Thanks for the replies.

I agree that when paired with a telephone lens like 70-200 f/2.8, lighter camera doesn't feel that balanced, like my previous 450D with 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. And it's indeed much better to pair either 5D or 6D with a heavy telephoto. Actually I prefer the combo of 6D + 70-200 f/2.8 IS II best, to either 5D or 7D.

For the rest of my lenses e.g. the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, I would like a smaller and lighter camera than the 6D though. So probably I need two cameras in the end. One is 6D, the other one is a more portable FF with DSLR AF and battery performance.

I think it comes down to 'whatever you are used to carrying'.

When I had my gripped 30D and EF-S 18-135 lens on it with a handstrap attached, I thought it was absolutely 'perfect' balance. Having gone from metal body 35mm film camera (Canon EF) to point and shoot, then several years later to the 30D, I was quite comfortable with the 30D & lens pair. The step up to a gripped 60D took a little getting used to, as did swapping out the 18-135 for several L lenses. My 'big' shock was upgrading to a gripped 5D mark iii about a year ago. THAT was a jump in size and weight. But after a couple of lengthy indoor (event) shoots and a downtown Chicago shoot for a day, the only part of me that was hurting or uncomfortable was my feet. But then, my right arm seems a little stronger these days.