In MGS2, the controls and the camera are fine, as long as you have radar. In fact, I'd say the control are perfect for the camera, which takes a bit of time to get used to but is pretty good when you get used to it. You shouldn't try to play it as a realistic game. Enemies are just as restricted as you are. If you accept the camera as a game mechanic and try to play the game by its rules and not your expectations, it should be fun. If it still isn't, well, too bad, it's not for you. By the way, the enemies don't generally respawn all that fast, so I don't see the problem. If they disappared for good once you got rid of them, the game would get boring very quickly because you still have to play around the same areas.
As for MGS3, the controls are slightly awkward I suppose. It's because it initially had MGS2-like controls. Can't really agree about the camera though, it works just fine with the new controls. Yes, even with grass. I think it adds a nice level of challenge there, and not an unfair one I feel. I agree with critique about the game's interface, although personally I took the clunky interface as a reason to play better so I don't have to use the interface too much.
MGS games have quite a few issues but I don't think controls and camera are one of them, at least to an extent that would have a significant effect.
tl;dr: Play the games by their rules and not by your expecations and it should be a lot better. MGS games have their own specific rules, and as long as you keep in mind they're just games with specific rules instead of comparing them to reality, they should be more enjoyable.