If his goal is to test the best you can do under tripod usage or great lighting why is that not fair? Why would it be fair to penalize the D810 just because the 5D3 doesn't do ISO100?
Because if you want to compare quality of images, you need to compare at same settings
For one comparing a new camera to a two year old camera, one would hope there were large improvements... I mean quickly... lets takes some bets... Will the 7DMKII out perform the 7D? How about the 5DMKII vs the 5DMKIII
Side by side comparison of a Nikon 8XXD to a Canon 5D MKIII are difficult because of image size, zooming in or compressing, either way the image has changed.
But too my point. If you want to look at image to image, you need to use the same settings.
If the answer is that at 100 the images have negligible difference, but the 8XXd has Iso 64 and the extra ISO helps with noise and quality, then that says two different things.
As far as tracking, and AF hits in burst.... I would have much preferred to see real action in real environments, such as shooting at F/5.6 or F/8 at ISO 1200 at 1/1000 or faster. This also required that camera is set up properly, which it is clear it was not.
What I don't know is if Tony Northrup is ignorant or dishonest. Did he not know how to set up the camera to get proper AF tracking, or did he deliberately shoot it at a non-optimal setting.
I believe he made a comment about "If you are a professional..." or something like that... Seems to me a professional would either KNOW, or if they are getting results that are less than they expect, they research