While reading-up a bit on graduated ND filters I encountered a comment somewhere that two stops of graduation are usually the right amount to keep the sky from clipping. This got me thinking, so I looked at DxOMark to compare the 60D (which I use) against the Nikon D7000. The D7000 is rated at 2 stops more DR. Putting these two propositions together, that would mean that a D7000 should be able to capture a full, natural, bright-sky scene without the benefit of a GND filter. More generally, this should hold for any camera with a 2-stop higher DR.
Question: for those of you who have used cameras with DxO-rated DR that is at least 2-stops higher, is this true? Can you really capture a landscape and sky, preserve important detail in the darker areas, and not blow-out the sky?
This is not an attempt to stir the cauldron of anti-DxO commenters; rather, I'm trying to look ahead a bit. There's been a lot of debate regarding prospective new Canon gear, and the relative benefits of MP, DR and high-ISO. For those of you serious landscape photographers, what is your "gold standard" for DR? What scene do you need to capture, without a GND filter, to declare that your camera has "enough" DR? (and if you tell me you want to point directly at the sun and still see detail in a gopher hole I won't take you seriously.