See that is the problem, if Canon is not the very best at something, then the problem can never, in any circumstance, ever, be real for anyone and the actual real world difference is always trivial and can, in all, cases, be not just worked around, but easily worked around.
Canon does not have a well supported mirrorless system, or a FF mirrorless. I love my M, but if you want a complete MILC kit, or a FF body for adapted rangefinder glass, the problem is not trivial and cannot be worked around.
There. Canon is not best at everything
In the case of low ISO DR that is simply not true.
So when I'm hiking and I lift my DSLR up and hand hold AEB 3 frames that I blend later...that's not an easy work around?
What is the situation, exactly, where the shadow latitude difference is both large and not easily worked around?
I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?
At one point (sorry jrista) the forum was being pointed towards Nikon HDR shots on Flickr with the claim that A) they were not HDR, and B) Canon could not produce the same at all even though Flickr is loaded with the same types of shots from Canon bodies.
You see this same kind of confirmation bias from certain online reviewers.
* Reviewer sees some small difference in a lab test where A is better then B.
* Reviewer takes and shoots only A in the field.
* Reviewer loves the results and writes about how only A could do it.
* Reviewer fails to test B in the field, and fails to look at the body of work from others using B.
Classic example is the recently released D750 review where the reviewer shot some junk in a corner at -5ev which the 5D3 could not match, then proceeded to glow about D750 wedding shots that the 5D3 (or even a 7D) could have easily matched. It was practically a bait and switch.
For most people, once you've psychologically convinced yourself that XYZ is better, then everything produced by XYZ automatically becomes evidence of how wonderful it is without any critical consideration of the question: could ABC have done the same thing? Is XYZ really making a difference in all these examples? Psychologically many will continue to insist that XYZ is far better even if you swap labels and they are praising ABC by accident! (The human mind is a strange thing
This isn't limited to DR. You will see the same nonsense in lens comparisons (for example). Heck, you'll see it in scientific fields were people are supposed to be aware of it and trained to avoid it.