Sorry to barge in but I wanted to chime in on Don's post. Not only is using Auto-ISO in full Manual an "elegant" shooting method, to borrow Don's word, it's also, in my mind anyway, infinitely practical. If you'll permit me I will expound.
So... The Exposure Triangle: Shutter Speed, Aperture, ISO. Of these three things I concern myself the *least* with ISO; not that I disregard it totally, mind you, but really what's the big deal between say ISO 100 vs ISO 400 in the practical sense? What other option allows me FOUR full stops of adjustment without blowing the shot? Dropping down four stops of shutter speed? Doubtful. Opening up another four stops of aperture? Possible I suppose but it doesn't seem likely. Either of these options might work but it's certainly going to change the aesthetic of my shot and most likely, quite dramatically.
Okay, so yes; the eventual downside to cranking up the ISO is noise so maybe in some situations letting it go too high less than ideal but... Consider the alternatives: 1. Drop the shutter speed... Which could easily result in a blurry shot. 2. Open the aperture... Which results in a shallow DoF... Which could easily lead to a blurry shot. Are the results of either Option 1 or Option 2 recoverable in post-processing? Not so much; you can't Photoshop your way out of a blurry shot, as you already know. But digital noise we at least have tools to deal with, pretty good ones actually (e.g. Dfine from NIK). To my way of thinking the only "Negative Leg" of the Exposure Triangle I can recover from in post is the noise produced by too high an ISO. Typically it also has the least overall impact on the aesthetic of my shot.
As always, your mileage may vary.