1. an extra 2-3 stops over what Canon delivers now actually would make a big difference for a lot of the shots where it matters at all. It's exactly what you'd need to pull off many dappled forest scenes and such, even if it won't cover every single HDR shot.
It really isn't. That's why people struggle to produce meaningful real world examples whenever this debate comes up. It's easy to underexpose the corner of a bedroom by 5ev. Not so easy to produce a pair of publishable images where the Canon just had to have bracketing while the Sony did not.
2. those GNDs only work for a very, very few simple types of scenes. They are totally useless for most scenes including virtually any forest scene or any of the jrista interior type shots.
Why do you think this is a counter argument in the age of HDR?
3. multi-shot HDR can work in more scenarios, but it doesn't work out that nicely when there is motion be it from water, a breeze or subject's own motion.
It's rare that this is a problem. Extremely rare. Shooting through tall grass in the wind with the sun directly behind the grass rare. Except...Exmor cannot handle that in one frame either.
It also tends to require slow tripod work (you can sometimes do hand-held, but it tends to leave at least some weird artifacts here and there that can be a beast to clean up;
I don't know where you're getting this. Hand held is stupid easy with a fast DSLR, especially with IS.
LOL how typical. Every single thing the Canon is best at makes a real difference, but anything it's not absolutely doesn't matter expect just barely at all in the only the most extreme scenarios.