>The advertised ISO on the D700 is 200-6400. The advertised
>ISO on the D800 is 100 to 6400.
>
>None of us have done a comparative test of the two in low
>light conditions, certainly the first thing I will test when I
>get mine. So, I don't see how anyone can logically conclude
>that the low light performance of the D800 will be any worse
>than the D700, which we all know is excellent.
>
>Before it was announced I had said (perhaps to myself) that if
>the ISO performance remained the same, and it had the improved
>pixel count, the improved focusing logarithms, and the video,
>I was in. I am in. Maybe the actual performance will turn out
>to be slightly worse than the D700, but to date, there is zero
>evidence of that.
>
>Am I wrong?

I agree and will wait and see once the D800 is in my hands. Regardless of D700/D800 comparisons I wanted a new DSRL and opted for the D800 over an older D700.