I levy the question again...how many of your shots are at ISO 100, and more importantly, of those ISO 100 shots, in how many did you desperately NEED to push shadows more than two or three stops?
You keep falling into the logical fallacy trap. The logic you are using can be applied to every argument ever made against improving imaging technology.
An improvement in technology is an improvement, regardless of how many use the improvement.
You've posted large blocks of text concerning how many photographers use Canon (one might even say heavy cheer-leading), but again that's a red herring when applied to the context of technological improvements. Again, an improvement is an improvement, regardless of usage or popularity.
Sorry, but you are still misunderstanding. I am not arguing against improving technology. I am trying to make the point that more DR is not as important as a great number of photographers these days think it is, the same great number of photographers who regularly bitch about Canon not having a mere two stops of additional DR (DR they probably wouldn't use most of the time.) I've never once said Canon shouldn't improve DR...your reading into something that simply isn't there (I actually have stated I have great confidence that Canon WILL improve DR.)
If someone has a critical need for more DR RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, they could have more DR. Just buy a D800, or a D600. I mean, that's the only option right now. I'm not arguing against DR...if you really need it, you really need it.
It just isn't nearly as common to need that much dynamic range, and it isn't so critical to image quality in general that it is the sole thing that would improve most photographer's work. For anyone who shoots ISO 400 and higher most of the time, I would actually offer that Canon currently offers the best gear which offers the best overall image quality for the greatest number of situations: Better AF, better high ISO, faster maximum frame rates, deeper frame buffers, more consistent and continuous frame rates after the frame buffer is full, and still good DR (even though it isn't "the best") that serves the majority of photographers needs most of the time.
My posts so far are making the point that for the majority of photographers who bitch and moan and complain about Canon's low ISO DR, even if they had it, they wouldn't actually need it most of the time. I've never made the point that we shouldn't try to progress technologically on all fronts (of course we should.)
The same general argument I'm trying to make could be applied to cameras that have no AA filter on the sensor. That seems to be as much a fad right now as more DR. I am always surprised by how many photographers blather on about how they want Canon to remove the AA filter from the next camera they want, "just like Nikon did." There are SOME cases where not having an AA filter can be useful, but it is far from a particularly desirable thing. Photographers just want it because its the new thing, and its "that thing the other guy has that I want." The lack of an AA filter, unlike DR, can actually result in a detrimental impact on IQ in a lot of circumstances. AA filters are actually useful and necessary most of the time, to avoid overly sharp and "nonsense" detail that can actually detract from overall IQ. I would really like to know how many photographers that want the AA filter to be removed would actually truly benefit from that...vs. how many would actually suffer from it. I think landscape photographers are really the key group who might benefit from no AA filter...but as others have argued, landscape photographers are a rather small segment of photographers at large.