How Chuck Westfall is able to remain employed by Canon will always be a mystery to me. What complete non-answers.
Just about all I could gain from this is, I noticed he used different words when comparing the 1DX and the 5D mk3 to the 1D mkIV. From what it SOUNDS like, I'd say that both the 1DX AND the 5D mk3 are going to be better focusing than the 1D mkIV, but in some subtle, tech-jargon-obscured way, the 1D mkIV will retain an advantage over the 5D mk3?
Anybody care to venture additional guesses at how the 5D mk3 will AF compared to other flagship cameras? I know there was a similarly subtle and almost-impossible-to-detect difference between the D700 and the D3's AF, and then the D3s etc. But I also know that the D700 (and now the D800 it seems) have ALMOST EVERY BIT of both accuracy AND speed when it comes to AF.
If Canon has found some subtle way to "cripple" the flagship AF in the 5D mk3 so that it looks awesome and flagship-y on paper but actually starts to drop the ball in low light enough to make people want for the 1DX, well, I think that is an epic fail on Canon's part. Although it would be in keeping with their long tradition of tactful product placement.
However personally I'm assuming the best; I bet the 5D mk3's AF will be 99.9% of the 1DX, and it will be the perfect camera for MANY types of photographers...
BTW, the whole thing regarding RAW noise is kinda silly. In my opinion, Chuck is just embarrassed to state that Canon's own RAW processing options play second-fiddle (or third, or fourth?) to Adobe's powerful ACR, and other RAW converters that do a WAY better job at maintaining low light high ISO image detail while eliminating noise.