... BUT all people are interested in megapixels and ISO performance. The Nikon D800 stays better at both compared with 5D3
...and AF performance and frame rate, where Canon has the edge.
+1 AF performance will ALWAYS be my main priority.. I can have all the detail in the world, and a slightly (and I mean slightly) OOF image makes that advantage go away. I have literally hundreds and hundreds of images that are truly insane moments that the 1d X catches that no other camera has done before. It's not that it's just quick on the trigger , it focuses subjects and images one would haven't even bothered to try catching with other cameras. And when there's such moments that are just TOO insane movements up close at f1,4, it still only misses by a centimeter, and I couldn't expect anything to catch it perfectly, BUT set it in 12 fps mode and you still get one sharp of those WAY beyond moments...
But imho, the 1d X is the only camera Canon have gotten right since the 5d2, I mean as an upgrade. The mk4 only fixed what was terribly wrong and flawed with the 1d3 and the 5d3 is a fantastic camera, but makes no improvement in IQ.
And that would be easier to take if the prices wasn't ridicolous... I mean, here in Norway the price difference of the mk4 at launch and the 1d X at launch is 2200 USD.. And now TWICE the price for the 24-70 II that is more prone to flare, way less protection for the lens barrel, bigger more expensive filters. For that price it should be better in every aspect, not just almost all. Canon must make their new products better in EVERY way and launch at the same price as the old new.