I thought it was a great review. The images worked for me, and all the comparisons seemed to be what you would expect from a real-world test. The exposure was different between the two cameras in all the shots I could see...the Nikon consistently over-exposes by about 2/3rds of a stop compared to the Canon, which would improve SNR relative to the Canon. The noise difference seemed to exemplify that. I bet if the Canon shots were all bumped up by 2/3rds of a stop, most of Canon's negatives in that review would have disappeared (excluding shadow pulling, of course...Canon just can't seem to beat Nikon in that arena.)
The thing that really intrigued me was the 1D X's AF speed. It was WAY faster than the D4. I think that explains a lot about the hit/miss ratio between the two cameras...Nikons are known for "getting it right first time", however to do so, they seem to slow down AF speed by about three-fold. At that rate, if you shot the same sequence at the default AF rates for both cameras, while you might get a few misses with the Canon, you should have more shots from the Canon as well. Since the 1D X seems to really NAIL focus whenver it actually locks, you should have just as many keepers as the D4...and a couple "not quite" shots that might fill in in a pinch.
