Personally, I think the more minimal range is closer to what the eye sees,
YOu'd be surprised. For the most part that is not the remotely the case.
so I agree that the first photo of yours doesn't look quite right. Not enough contrast. And that is why the more limited DR of the Canon sensor doesn't bother me. Contrast is more important in both art and photography than capturing many subtle gradations of light and dark, in my opinion (and may actually be closer to what the eye sees).
1. you can apply some more local contrast and tone mapping
2. high DR displays should be here by 2018 in full force
Hopefully and I am shure about that - I have seen LGs OLED TVs in some shops @ 5000€ - very expensive for a 50 inch screen but ... the quality is absolutely stunning just in the well lit room. I think a DR of 16 or 18 stops is easily achievable - it depends no longer on the screen tech but the related electronics. That combined with UHD and we can see the images from 2005 the first time on a matching display system in terms of resolution and DR.@dak723
The system eye-brain has an overall DR of 20 stops but it uses indeed two sensor matrices with color (daylight) and b/w (night) sensors and the iris for fast response. But I think a DR of 10 or 11 bits is a realistic number for one view with same "sensor matrix" and fixed iris. With larger monitors and more DR it might be interesting to capture scenes just at higher DR - let your eye stroll throu the image and see more detail after adaption. Might be a new way of artistic expression.
A simple example for the vast range of sensibility of our eyes:
On a sunny day, 12 o'clock you have roughly 1000 Watts of incident light power per square meter.
Use a simple micro LED torch with a 5mm standard white led. It delivers 20 Milliwatts and you can easily see things on a 20 square meter area (a small room's walls, after adaption). Now you have only 1 Milliwatt per square meter.
The ration between them is 1000000:1 ...