The only reason to get this camera is that it offers image quality very close to the 1Ds, but ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS - low ISO, correct choice of lens correction (to avoid the green/magenta colour cast), and certain textures avoided in the image.
Otherwise the cons point to what appears to be a carricature of a real camera. Startup time of 6 seconds? 15 seconds to write a JPG image to card? Useless above ISO400? Watercolour-like artefacts from noise reduction, and an INABILITY to turn this noise reduction off? Problems with moire? Add to that, it's an ugly camera with bad ergonomics. I think I only saw one command dial in the review.
No thanks. I'll take the 1DMk2 for the same price. It is better built, offers better all-round image quality, and MUCH MUCH faster.
I've had a long-running discussion with my Nikon friend who says that the Kodak SLR/n is superior to the 1Ds. My foot! It looks as if we have to wait a few more years before Nikon catches up with what Canon was doing back in 2002.
Oh, and if you believe this guy in dpreview there will be a replacement 1Ds in September. There is reason to believe him - I know Paul Pope from another forum we both frequent and he correctly predicted the 1DMk2, the 28-300 and the 70-300 DO IS months before they were announced. The guy is a pro photographer who test-drives cameras for Canon.