Speaking from ignorance, I think what we need is sensitivity per pixel, not ISO per se. That's what we seem to get with new sensors as time goes on. But sometimes the makers have to play the megapixel race game, so trade low ISO for more pixels. The result is not a win for all.
I used a 6MP Nikon D70 for a long time on land for weddings. It had ISO 100 but the real beauty was shutter speed of 1/8000 for stop action/bright sun. Later cameras went to ISO 200, and dropped the high shutter speed to 1/4000. Same with the Nikon D40, it had ISO 100, 6MP, and was better for me than the successors with more MP but less sensitivity per pixel due to smaller pixel size. I stayed with the older camera because I kept getting great results compared to newer bodies. Honestly 6 MP was fine for the 8x10 enlargements I was printing.
Now we're seeing 25MP+ cameras with amazing high ISO, but they seem to throw away low ISO since the marketeers want more megapixels, not low ISO. Since we would seem to prefer the lower ISO, we need to let the companies know. Pros like Phil have some influence, but so do the rest of us blokes. Very often with Japanese companies, they want consensus on design features, so they need to hear from a lot of buyers if we want to influence future designs.
