The Northrup review is pretty biased, IMO, a bit like his mind was made up and he was out to prove a point. That is the trouble with most of these so-called reviews. I can't speak too much for his AF evaluation except to say that the camera works for me and I have no issues with it. However, his commentary on the noise performance of the camera was complete hype and just about as bogus as the best of them. Which calls into question the rest of it for me.Perhaps you believe everything on the Internet is authoritative? Take Tony Northrup's YouTube "review"…in his "sports" test, which consisted of a subject walking sedately toward him, he reported a keeper percentage in the low 60s from the 5DIII. What a joke, but I suspect you believed every word.
No. I carefully compare all the info I can get and try to draw an informed decision based on the broadest possible basis. You can see a - short - list of comparison reviews I have posted above on the AF question. I have in fact not seen a single comparison test out there that makes the claim that the 5DIII AF is better than the 810 AF. Please post as I would like to read them too if they in fact exist.
I take note of your experience. But it would be more believable if you did not feel compelled to ridicule those who have carefully documented their results and presented them for us all to evaluate. Having made many reviews myself I know how painstakingly long time it takes and how much effort goes into trying to make them as error-free as possible.
The only reason you can insult Tony Northrup is because his test was easy to follow and absolutely transparent - far above the level of what most others offer. Your counter claim here is just that - an unsubstantiated claim to be taken at face value. Hardly the best basis for such harsh words.
Of particular interest was his wife's comment to me in a DPR thread that she felt that she "needed" the D800 because she did night photography. I have been doing night photography with Canon gear since the 20D and really never found it's sensor performance to be a serious limitation (as have many others -- you can find examples everywhere you want to look). To me this looks like pure hype and is very misleading when you take a scene and say "you may have trouble seeing this so I'll zoom in to 100% and lift the exposure slider several stops so you can see it clearly". You will notice that they didn't bother to show you what the resulting image (the full image) looked like from both pieces of equipment after that trick was pulled. That review is pure bologna, designed to make a point and nothing more. If you want objective reviews stick to imaging resource or DPR, good solid actionable information, devoid of the hype and bologna.