I know, but it's still overrated. I did this on a supposed "outdated" sensor tech from a camera everyone loves to bash for DR. Heck, with alittle more time I could do this same shot on a d30.
... provided the scene doesn't exceed the capabilities of the D30.
No, provided that I understand how to get as many stops of DR I need.
If you're stacking exposures, sure. But in the case where that's impractical (e.g. motion), you're stuck with the capabilities of your equipment, which is limited on one end by the camera.
If sufficiently equipped, you can compress the dynamic range of the scene using filters (ND over bright areas, for example). But one can't always carry an entire supply room around, and at some point it comes down to the equipment you have with you.
If it indeed doesn't matter, would you willingly exchange your camera for one with, say, 3 stops of capability, all else being equal?
For me, quasi-modern cameras (e.g. my 5D2) generally have enough. But if for whatever reason I wanted to expose someone's face indoors with the lights out facing away from an open window, and simultaneously expose someone's face standing outside that window under direct sunlight, I couldn't do it without significantly altering the lighting conditions (flexibility I may have in a studio, but not in the field).
More common may be "overpower the sun" portraiture. If you don't have a powerful flash, the DR of a camera is vastly insufficient. Expand that to a wider set of subjects than a single portrait.
Having more headroom in the camera is a good thing.
I don't believe your understanding what I'm stating. It's not about DR, its about being at the right place at the right time.