As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.
No dslr or film stock has ever come close to recording what the human eye is capable of seeing. We are capable of seeing 256 shades of grey total. In optimal conditions the average human eye can see up to 100 shades of grey at once with that number falling lower depending on lighting conditions. Every single variance of photographic format and technique is simply a representation of what we see as human beings.
The terms "accurate" and "realistic" are highly subjective when it comes to photography representing what we see.
I use 2 different techniques when I want to expand the range of tones in a scene in the digital format. The first being a manual merging of bracketed shots in photoshop (if I am going for the "realistic" look) and the second being the automated HDR technique via plugin software (when I want a more stylized look).
Both require a ton of effort in post to pull off successfully. Most "HDR" photos that I see suffer from 1 or 2 critical mistakes. Either mishandling of the technique (wether it be inappropriate lighting, insufficient bracketing, or straight up slider delirium ie overcooked file) or unfinished post-production after the file emerges from the HDR process (halos not corrected, noise not being corrected, localized color shifting not being addressed, etc )
The only attempts I find egregious are the files where the tonal range ends up getting anhialated and file photo looks like a chalky washed out mess. Whenever I use either method I try to protect and enhance my tones throughout the scene (zone 1 through 10) making sure that I still have rich shadows, rich highlights, and pure blacks and whites.
In the hands of a proficient photographer these techniques can be very useful and successful.