First of all .... guilty as charged.
A couple of points of clarification: in my involvement with photography for awround 35 years thus far, I've owned and used a great many cameras, and I have, in the past, owned Canons too. I think I still have a power winder for an A series SLR, and let me say, right now, that the Canon A1 camera remains, in my mind, as one of the best SLRs ever made by anyone. Truly a benchmark camera.
As was the 300D, but for very different reasons.
But while the A1 will remain revered as a benchmark for technical reasons, I doubt that will be said of the 300D.
On to the EOS 1Ds MkII
The camera is a very capable beastie, wery highly specified, very fast in the focus department, and in the main, very easy to use.
First things: Canon fittings are different from Nikon: the lenses mount in the opposite direction, the focus rings work in the opposite direction too.
This was the first time that I've been able to hndle one of these, and glory be, for an extended period.
My first impressions of the Canon 5D were that it's a nice-ish camera, but the ergonomics were not that good. At the time I wondered wheter that was simply an artefact of my greater familiarity with Nikon products, but after two days' playing with the MkII, I'm safely able to say that there is more than just familiarity coming into play.
For instance, changing the ISO setting is almost a three handed operation: two buttons on the left, plus a wheel on the right. Why does it require so many appendages to do something so basic?
Altering menu selections is even more convoluted: Hold down one button and turn a wheel. To make changes, hold down another button and turn a wheel.
This is neither intuitive, natural, nor comfortable.
More importantly, it is not fast to do: there's a real problem that may manifest itself when it comes to makign changes in the field, in the heat of "battle".
But wait, there's more: image review: display and zoom is fine; there are buttons clearly marked to zoom in and out; this is good, as is the tiny thumbnail that tells you what part of the whole image you're currently looking at.
But let's move to a different part of the image: to move horizontally, you use one of the thumbwheels, and to move vertically, you use the other. One is on the back of the camera; the other is just behind the shutter release.
Whomever came up with this design needs to go back to design school: it's unnatural, it's wrong, it's just plain bloody stupid!
The display on the back is not up to the standards currently being seen in the D2x or even the D200; look at it from anywhere other than dead straight on, and you see very little. I suspect that this is due more to the age of the design and componentry more than anything else, but equally, this is something that should be fairly easy to upgrade.
There are a couple of areas where they have included some very intelligent features: opening the CF housing turns the camera off. This is good.
And in use, the camera is very nice. Being an old film hack, I love the full frame capabilities, and I miss having even a 24mm as a wide angle. The distortion that one sees in the viewfinder with the 16mm is a delight to my eyes, and as much as I love the DX format, I do believbe that if Nikon do not bring out a full frame equivalent, they will lose a significant market: there is more to photography than simply the image quality that they're managing to pull form the DX sensor as exemplified in the D2X, an no amount of spin doctoring can change what are, plain and simple, facts of life.