The Nikon D4 delivered 12 of 12 images in-focus. 100%.
The Canon 1Dx gave us 9 images in focus, 1 on the nose, and two on the ears.
So, where’s the confusion? Well, when we describe what is “in-focus”, it looks like the Canon 1Dx has a different definition of the term. Those 9 images that the 1Dx delivered in-focus absolutely destroyed the Nikon D4 in terms of detail and accuracy. In fact, that one that hit the nose seemed to be a bit more like what we saw from the D4 in every shot.
Speed is not all
Definitely not cut and dried. Do you want 9/12 shots that deliver much better detail and accuracy, or 12/12 'okay' shots that are similar in level of detail to one of the slightly OOF 3/12 shots?
Given that choice, I'd take the 9/12 @ 12 fps from the 1D X that 'absolutely destroy the Nikon D4 in terms of detail and accuracy'.
Was that your point?
The point is that we are discussing the AF reliability. 12of 12 or 9 of 12.
If I were you, I'd read more carefully before quoting. The lines in red sort of crush your argument... it seems to say D4 "reliable" is about as good as 1Dx "unreliable"
In any case- wasn't this a 7DII thread! Why are people who haven't even used both (or probably either) of D4 and 1Dx comparing them on a 7DII thread!!!
I am more than happy with the specs. As long as the sensor is about 2 stops higher in sensitivity- give me everything else same as the 7D, and I'd still buy it. Call it 70D, 7DII, 100k, "the eye of the tiger", I don't care- just get it out into the stores...