My first real camera was a Canon AE-1 P with 50/1.8 lens, and I've loved Canon SLRs ever since. At its peak around 2004, my kit included an A-1 and 3 F-1N bodies, with a bunch of accessories (power winders, IR remote release, flashes) collection of great prime lenses (24/1.4L, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.2L, 85/1.8, 85/1.2L, 135/2.8, 135/2, 200/2.8) and one zoom (35-105/3.5 2-touch). All were wonderfully built and performing pieces of equipment that never failed me. My favorites were the 3 fast L lenses -- heavy, but superbly built and great image quality.
I still have the 4 bodies, some accessories and 50/1.2L, 50/1.4, 50/1.4 SSC, 35/2 and 28/2 lenses, having sold off the rest of the lenses (alas, before m4/3 brought prices back up :bang: ). But I haven't used any of it in several years, since I went to digital for everything I used to do with 35mm film. Those F-1N bodies are still tough enough to pound nails (pretty much literally), with a great system of interchangeable finders and focus screens. The real shame is that the lenses will never work on an EOS mount camera -- it would be a blast to put the $350 50/1.2L on a 5D instead of springing for a $1500 EF version....
Concerning the main gist of the OP's topic, I think there's less love around here for Canon SLRs simply due to photog cultural history: Mostly for marketing/brand-imagery reasons, Nikon have been more associated with photojournalists and documentary photographers, while Canon have identified more with sports and wildlife photographers. Since rangefinders are decidedly the province of the former, an RF-oriented forum would naturally tilt Nikon in its SLR digressions.
I've used Nikons as well, and I can say there's no practical difference -- at a given product-line level -- between Canon and Nikon for feature set, build quality, optical quality or ergonomics. You can find hell and heaven at (respectively) the low end and high end of both brands' offerings.
::Ari