Welcome, RecentConvert, and I'm happy you converted to Nikon. :D

I bought the D700 specifically because (before the D3s) it had the highest ISO capabilities (I compared to Canon 5DMkII, and I found it wanting badly). Therefore: at night, indoors: 3200 as a habit, 6400 without hesitation, and Hi1 if necessary. Hi2 is pushing it too far, but I have used it, because a noisy shot is better than no shot when you try to capture your brother's birthday-revellers in a dimmly lit European winebar.
When the light is good, I go for 200 to 400.

for nature usually under 400
for portraits and party shots 6400 - that's on D700
I actualy dont mind a bit of grain on house party shots, maybe its a style of my photography (coming from no where and taking shots of ppl doing things) maybe its just me but it gives a bit more feeling to the shot at 6400...

oh yeh I got small lumix and it set to 200 MAX.... coz it sux :)

I always shoot in Manual Mode, because I just like being in control, I don't like the camera doing work for me, then I feel like the camera is the one making the image and not me. Anyhow, I tend to shoot 400 when doing weddings and events, however, if lighting conditions permit, I try and shoot lower, like ISO 200 or if I am lucky enough, ISO 100. I have been experimenting lately though with higher ISOs, because I want to work outside my comfort zone, which I dont usually do, but I feel like if I do that I can become more well rounded and will know how to shoot properly under any lighting circumstances. There is an article by a rollerblading photographer, Jeremy Stephenson, who tried this out on one of his trips documenting some rollerblading, check it here: http://www.believeinone.com/?p=409

640-800 on my D200, MAX

i'm rather picky with regards to noise, so i will rarely use my d90 above iso 800.

D5000, iso1600

"Your cameras ISO".
(its still 200 98% of the time btw :D)

Me too,me too....and remember never underexpose unless you are shooting for the moon :>)

Oh Boy.
Anyway, i totally agree with your expose to the right statements soap,and i use it quite frequently, Michael of luminous-landscape.com has a nice tutorial on it.
However, i believe in getting it right in the camera, and i rarely touch my bird photos in photoshop etc.(this applies only to my wildlife photos) Only the very special outpicks get very special treatment in LR, PS etc.
So if i were to do that exposure correction to my liking in LR or whatever,it would just be an extra step, and im not much for doing stuff in the DD, i prefer being out there, even if im just watching wildlife and not shooting like crazy, id rather do that over spending time correcting my exposure compensation in LR, cause its just a lot more fun being out there.

We all have our own ways of doing things, so why don't we just continue where the thread left off, "Your cameras ISO".
(its still 200 98% of the time btw :D)

OK soap....you win man, gimme a kiss and a hug,....with the 50 gazillion moderators just added....I don't want to be the first poster banned :>)

I was supposed to take that post as anything other than an insult?
Honestly?

"this isn't an e-penis contest and I don't feel I dodged anything." WOW soap...just trying to have some fun here my buddy....not trying to insinuate what might happen if you dropped the soap in the shower :)

I won't rise to the insult, but will clarify where I fear there is perhaps a misconception.

I, in no way, shape, or form, attempted to attack your vision of correct exposure. I simply clarified an apparent misconception on how SNR works and how best to address it.

Call me slick all you want - this isn't an e-penis contest and I don't feel I dodged anything.

You entered this discussion with a (completely valid) mention of a situation where you choose to underexpose what the meter is telling you. That is not what this discussion was about. All previous discussion was in regards to the value of underexposing in-camera and correcting in post vs. +1 ISO in camera.

Very good soap....your handle suits you....clean and slick!

Missing the point. The point is to create the exact same exposure.
You're asking for one (-4 EV, no PP) exposed where you like it and one (0.0, no PP) 4 stops exposed beyond where you like it. Of course the one exposed the way you like it is gonna look better.

What I am talking about is one exposed -4 in camera vs one done in post.

The exposure would be the same (where you like it) but the SNR would be better for the one done in post.
Shooting static images (like the moon) this is likely going to be splitting hairs for you have the "luxury" of shooting with low ISOs. But for shooting closer to the limits of the camera (such as where this discussion originated) the difference can be dramatic.

Google "expose-to-the-right" for examples better than I can make for you.

I can't argue theory with you Soap, because you seem to be the master of theory,but if you would be so kind as to post two images of the full moon with a 300mm focal length lens...one at 0.0,bias, no PP and another at -4 EV, no PP, at 100 or 200 ISO I am sure that I would be enlightened.

For an old hillbilly like me, a picture would be worth much more than a thousand words ;>)

BTW, I see by your profile that you are a land surveyor. Many years ago I was a surveyor's assistant.....probably the most enjoyable job that I have ever had.

Good point shutterdancer. When taking pictures of birds with a lot of white in their plumage, stopping down EV is pretty much a must.

The issue isn't if the meter fails to expose as you creatively desire, shutterdancer, but how to maximize SNR.
The expose-to-the-right people would say to not set -4 EV in-camera, but rather to manually expose up to the point where you risk clipping (thus maximizing the full dynamic range of your sensor) and then to darken in post.

Think of it this way - the best tested DSLR by dxolabs (talking about dynamic range) is the Nikon D3X. It has ~13 stops of DR. If you purposefully underexpose 4 stops in camera, you have purposefully discarded 30% of what the camera is capable of. Since the camera can only record 14 bits of information, and all your final images will be 16 bit (8 bit jpg = non-linear and is ~equivalent to 16 bits as far as dynamic range is concerned) by setting -4 EV in camera you have limited yourself to 10 bits of DR in the final image. If you expose to the right in camera, and only subtract the 4 stops in post processing you will be left with 12 stops of dynamic range (because you're working in 16 bit, not 14 bit, space at the time of applying the effect.)

If we're talking a more mainstream camera (D300-class sensor) the DR in camera is only ~12 stops and you're tossing a full third of what the camera is capable of by doing the exposure compensation in-camera vs in-post.

Interesting discussion....I mostly stay at base ISO,only changing it manually when and if the need arises. As for the underexposure thing.....moon shots come to mind.I was just looking at some shots that I took 8 or 9 months ago and I had to go -4 EV to get good definition.

I only shoot at ISO 200 in direct sunlight. 400 or 500 is often best to get reasonably high shutter speeds, needed in case a bird decides to move. They do this suddenly and sometimes you can get a cool shot from it:

http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/92011973

I wanted him wading through the water. He decided to take off the instant the shutter fired. Although in direct sunlight, it was morning and the sun was actually a bit hazy that morning.

BMXdad you're right. Higher ISO's with today's latest DSLR's are great and it is here, as I've mentioned before where the improvements are made. Not at base settings. I guess I'm midway between you and soap. I think we get into a comfort zone and get used to it and when we get new gear are afriad that it might be like our old gear. But it isn't. I might try some ISO 6400 shots soon, I have the cameras to do it now so why not? We're past the age of the D40, D200 and D80. Those were great but if that's what you're used to ISO 800 is all you will ever want to push to. I like my D90 at ISO 1000.

BMX is right, lets have fun with our gear. Isn't that why we bought it?

Thanks Soap/Gentoo: next time I need to shot action at lower light I going to try a few shots at 3200 and -1 EV and some at 6400 and see how they compare.

Normally I shot at ISO 200, but for me my D300 is a great tool that have a great range of available ISO settings, not like film were you had none in each roll you shot. So for me the best ISO is the ISO that will expose my shot at the shutter speed and aperture setting that I want. When I shoot BMX I might in sunlight move up to ISO 800 to get some extra DOF, so for you all don't be afraid of higher ISO, have fun with your camera

Pete

I'm also with Demi, almost always at 200. I prefer a tripod or faster lens. Upping the ISO is my last resort. (But you might not want to pay much attention to me, I used to shoot Kodachrome 25 (at 32) and thought Velvia was fast.)

Sometimes during pictures of sunsets or sunrises, taking a picture of a cityscape, -1EV or more is good, example:
because the brighter sunset part of a sky would push my shutter speed higher i might loose some of the city. The matrix meter reacts to the brightness of the sky, which would leave my cityscape a bit darker, its a small thing but it means something to me.
another thing i used it for was birds, but ill be having a look at what you just linked to, it caught my attention, soap +1 to ya thanks.

The beauty of it is, even if you prefer to leave a ~1 stop "buffer" in your exposure (not a philosophy I agree with, but to each their own ;) ) at least with UniWB you know honestly how large your exposure "buffer" is and don't compromise more dynamic range than you need to.

Interesting. I'll check that out. I've always just followed the advice of other birders and even though their shots are often amazing, it doesn't mean they know everything.

Soap, you're very knowledgeable and I know your advice is going to teach me a few things.

Thank you.