Rongnongno Loc: FL

I am puzzled by the number of folks using high ISO. Why not slow down a bit and use what the base ISO has to offer.... Like incredible dynamic range in some cameras...

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Nowdays I use auto ISO a lot and it does exactly I would do when shooting (preferred method of shooting) aperture priority - ie; shutter speed = 1/focal length (in 35mm FOV terms)
I do set the upper limit to ISO 6400 and if it goes that high it is because of the light levels.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I couldn't get any slower than 1/60 on a moving target still at ISO-5000 ....

Canvasback by Paul Sager on 500px.com
http://drscdn.500px.org/photo/234453427/m%3D900/v2?user_id=8097963&webp=true&sig=9f5955732054d29472846edb57b8a126db38c225136baa72e2641970b9eaa7ff

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but various events have worked together to move my thinking:

(1) For fifty years I have been photographing railroads as a co-hobby. During the film era, I used Kodachrome, and I had to limit my shutter speed to 1/250. Recently I have noticed some blur in my pictures, so I now use 1/500 routinely to capture moving trains. Looking back through my old slides, I don't see that blur. I don't believe the trains I'm photographing are moving any faster, but digital seems to be more sensitive to motion - seems to require higher shutter speeds to "stop" motion - than film ever did.

(2) More and more we are seeing sharpness, what I call "needle sharpness" because it seems almost like an addiction, as a basic requirement images are measured against. Combined with (1) above, photographers have to go to higher ISO values so they can go to higher shutter speeds.

(3) We are taking pictures where we wouldn't have even considered taking them a decade ago, and we are doing it without flash, which frankly never was a very good solution because dragging several strobes with us as we tour a museum or whatever just doesn't appeal to most of us, and there are many venues which allow photography as long as the photographer doesn't use flash.

I'm sure that there are a bunch of other issues I won't remember until the middle of the night, but we are being driven to more and more perfection, which is causing us to go to higher ISO numbers. If the cameras can deliver, why not?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

If you are photographing landscapes or any other non moving object, fine. But if you are shooting action, birds in flight, sports, street photography; you can fix noise, but you cannot fix a blurry shot.
See what a National Geographic Pro says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrQJLyOub3A&t=241s

Around 3 min 43 sec.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

There are many moving subject, low light situations where flash isn’t appropriate including performances, night/indoor weddings, indoor sports, etc. that require relatively high shutter speed to freeze the motion, which even with fast lenses requires high ISO.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

We had the same problem before and were no impeded by the lack of high ISO.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Ever tried shooting indoor classical music concerts, in colour, with available light?
Ever tried shooting motor racing in pre-dawn light?
Ever tried a pre dawn, or late night, walk without a tripod?
Edit - I'm talking about ISO 1600 (+)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

(1) Have you ever considered that the cause maybe the sensor itself? The more sophisticated the more it records, especially in the high density sensors.
(2) You are right, sharpness is an addiction. I once posted butterfly images in motion. The main critic? 'Their wings are blurred'. My answer at the time (that has not changed) "I want to see life, not a dead thing".
(3) You are partially correct on 'we would not have considered before'. The trouble is that we are working with the ingrained motion that there is no other way that the 'correct combination exposure A, S and I when it should be A, S, DR*

The thing is... (2) is what we need to fight. We have let ourselves be impressed by high ISO performance. (WE, myself included)

When I received the Nikon D500 I did my usual foolishness, check for extremes. When I did basically changed my attitude toward ISO because the latitude offered by the DR (shooting raw of course) has become a new factor.

I can under expose 4 stops w/o a cost because of this progress*. It is a different way of thinking. Deliberately under expose? HECK NO! Now I am, under expose at base ISO? Heck yes - when needed that is -. I would not underexpose if using a higher ISO, the results would be messy. ETTR and EBTR are taking a hit now. Not because ETTR/EBTR does not work but because it less useful. Do not get me wrong, when I shoot other than base ISO, if the scene does not challenge my camera DR I still use it.

Basically, for me, my opinion, the technology is shifting again and we are not paying attention. High ISO use is a symptom.

As to last comment 'We are driven to more and more perfection'... What is 'perfection?' According to whom? (A can of worm I am not willing to open that should be a full thread).

-----
* Invariant sensors are responsible for this change.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Both my Leica and my CLE are loaded with ISO 400 film, which 60 years ago would have been a last resort (Tri-X was really grainy and, pushed two stops, was a b**ch to develop so that anything was understandable). I still try to keep my 7100 at or below 800. Yeah, I know, it’s like driving a Pinto in the Daytona 500, but it’s still a lot of fun and a great challenge.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I try to stay in the range you suggest. I go up to 6400 on my D500 in early morning and have been very happy with the results. I remember in the 70's pushing Tri X 400 to 6400 and the resulting grain. Digital has come a long way in just a few short years. In less than five years I predict an ISO of 102,000 will not be uncommon. Love Digital.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Yes we were. I remember how great it was when Kodak and Fuji came out with faster film. The first ASA 400 color film. The first ASA 1000 color film. The first ASA 1600 color film. Yes they had more grain, but they were faster - and we needed more speed but we had to hold our aspirations to what chemistry could deliver. Now we don't have chemistry as a tether, and this is very good.
.

This display is parked in a dark corner of the replica Ford factory at Greenfield Village, Dearborn Michigan.{I used ISO 3200}

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

What do you consider high?

LarryFitz Loc: Beacon NY

Last year when my wife give me a DSLR camera, I though that setting ISO about 800 would be a problem. Then I started to follow UHH, I saw to high ISO being used. Now, I use them when needed. Last week I was standing on a bridge at dawn taking pictures, use ISO of 3200 6400. I could feel the vibrations when the car and trucks would go by, but could not see the vibration in the photos. I prefer ISO of 100 - 400, thanks to UHH I learned I can also use higher ISO.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I use it because I need a higher shutter speed and or a specific aperture therefore the ISO needs to change.
I prefer a bit of noise over a smeary low shutter speed photo. Has nothing to do with slowing down, some moving objects etc. cannot be controlled.