Shashin - I'm not looking for any one specific shoot or project. I'm more curious for when I happen to be faced with the situation of shooting at (for example) 1/60 sec, ISO 800 and underexposing 1 stop, or 1/60 sec, ISO 1600 S+ for correct exposure, and which will ultimately produce the better file.
Neither file will print as well/large as a properly exposed shot at ISO 50 - I think that's a given (at least 99% of the time). Question is, which will be closest.
And after some testing today, I think the answer is: it depends.
I think your statement regarding photographers being driven by technical specs over creative process is quite harsh and over-reaching. For as long as there have been loupes, there has been "pixel peeping" (or grain peeping). There has always been a healthy debate and discussion over technical merits of equipment. This type of debate has NOTHING to do with digital sensors. It was around when "small" 4x5 film was introduced, and then 120, and 135...all of which I've shot extensively.
My philosophy has always been to shoot with the highest quality that's practical, irrespective of its proposed final use. Nothing about that has changed with digital. That's why cameras like the Mamiya 7 existed - to give would-be Leica users a medium-format alternative, where an RB67 wouldn't be practical.