I don't think anyone would say no to more DR. As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough.
This is really another red herring. It doesn't matter if two more stops of DR isn't enough...it's still significant, and it simplifies whatever else you have to do to deal with any excess DR. In my recent landscape scenes, I was using five to six stops of GND filtration. That's a lot of filters to stack, and stacking that many filters affects IQ across the board (resin GND filters, even the really high end optical grade ones, affect resolving power and diminish IQ at every tonal level). With two more stops or so of DR, I could drop at least one filter. I might even be able to get away with a single three or four stop GND, eliminate the stacking all together.
In the cases where I could not use GND filtration (such as photographing a river within the trees, with only a V-shaped blown sky at the end), most of the time, I was about two, maybe two and a half stops short of being able to expose for the sky. Having two more stops of DR would have solved the very vast majority of that problem, more than enough to get away with the contrast I wanted with nice clean falloff into the shadows, while still preserving the sky. The 5D III, even though I wanted a contrasty image, does not have that clean falloff into the shadows...and the sky is STILL blown.
So, the whole notion that "it's still not enough" is a fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's not enough...it's still a LOT more dynamic range, and it results in cleaner data from the highlights right down into the deep, deep shadows. Canon data gets scratchier and muddier starting in the lower midtones, and gets ever more nasty the deeper you go. I like contrasty landscapes, and when downsampled to ~8x10 size or smaller for viewing on the web they look perfectly fine. But printed? The shadows are muddy, red-blotchy mush, even despite the contrast.
So tell me Jon, how do I get away using Canon gear ? Nearly all my pictures are shot either across or into the sun.
The only bit of kit I really need is a body and a 24-70 standard zoom. I could easily switch to Nikon in the blink of an eye, but there is no need, because there is not enough advantage to make it worthwhile.
12 stops is one hell of a range, and a two stop dodge or burn is a hell of a difference in exposure. When you move outside 12 stops Neuro is right, you need much more to make a significant difference to optimum processing techniques.