The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect.
That's the second time you've made that ridiculous claim. Let's start with some really, really simple questions.
- How is the D810's 5 frames per second better than the 5DIII's 6 frames per second?
Oh, and I hope your answer to that first point won't foolishly invoke the higher frame rate in DX mode, unless you're prepared to also explain how using only 43% of the sensor area is better than using the whole thing.
Why is throwing away 43% of the sensor area a problem when people can and do crop down that much or more?
There's no problem with cropping. Throw away 99% of your image area, if it makes you happy. But we're not discussing cropping an image, we're discussing frame rates.
It is foolish is to suggest that the D810's higher frame rate in DX mode somehow makes the D810 superior to the 5DIII in terms of frame rate, since that higher frame rate comes at the cost of throwing away ~60% of the incoming light.
Similarly, the fps for the 1D X is appropriately stated as 12 fps. Technically, it can shoot 14 fps, but only writing JPGs with the mirror locked up. So it's reasonable to say the 1D X shoots at a 9% higher frame rate (12 vs. 11) than the D4s, but it's not reasonable to state the 1D X shoots 27% (14 vs. 11), even though with certain constraints it can (and arguably those constraints are less impactful than cropping by ~60%).
The 5DIII has a 20% higher frame rate than the D810...I'd still like to hear how the D810 slower frame rate is part of 'better in every respect'.