I couldn't resist.
I know it isn't very reasonable. But by collecting that many data, I could nonetheless describe a reliable trend of AF.C performance of various cameras.
I took the Labo FNAC data from 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Then I decided that the nearest distance where a sharp photo was still reported is the best single number measure of performance.
Then I noted a trend to favour low Megapixel. As it turned out, this trend was by pixel pitch rather Megapixel or Sqrt(MP), i.e., full frame cameras were not in disadvantage by the higher MP.
So, I defined an AF.C performance figure as
P1 = 100 / nearest distance [m] / pixel pitch [µm].
I plot P vs. MP so everybody can apply his own visual compensation for the effect. Not that at the same MP number, dividing by pitch disadvantages full frame and you may not like that.
So, I attached a 2ns chart w/o the pitch compensation:
P2 = 20 m / nearest distance
Moreover, I spotted a few errors where FNAC reversed the scale (nearest and farest distance) when transfering results to 2009. In one case, they spotted the error 2010. Eventually, I dropped the 50D and D300 results as they have been unplausibly good. The next one to drop would be the 1000D result (which BTW is the reversed and later corrected result).
The resulting chart is as shown in the appendic.
Discussion:
There is a certain cluster formation which I believe is more significant than any single result.
Except 7D and 550D, all "good" cameras sit in the 2-3 band, more or less.
The D3s / D300s are reported to outperform a 7D in the field, so the Canons may be particularly well adapt to this synthetic uniform motion benchmark which is trivial to predict. Assuming a very strong predictor, the red Canon squares should all be lowered a bit for field relevance.
Otherwise, the K-5 is the first Pentax entry in the "band of interest" (it sits on one spot with D7000 and 1DmkIV). That's great news! And the other green spots at the bottom of the chart are no fun
Moreover, the test is a strong indicator that K-x and K-r (same spot in the chart) share the same AF module, despite Pentax calling it Safox IX now.
Also quite astonishing is that µFT starts to be able to compete; look at GH and EPL1.
And now the chart, enjoy