I attach a section of one of the RAW files, and as you can see the shadows are pretty black. Yet we pulled this back no problem in post - there is no noise, no banding - no issues.
The reason, of course, that you didn't have any trouble with the shadows is that -- wait for it! -- you let the shadows be shadows. Radical concept, I know, especially for the measurebators.
Those who constantly bitch about noisy shadows are generally trying to turn shadows into midtones -- and, sometimes, even brighter than midtones. Invariably, they're at least placing the lighter parts of the shadow detail at or above Zone V, and often stretching the hell out of the contrast to boot.
In other words, they're trying to use the camera's dynamic range as a fill flash, and often as a high-intensity selective spotlight to boot.
Thing is, even if the camera could
contort the image like that, it still
won't look right...the directionality of the shadows, the proportions, everything will look weird.
Now, if you like
that bizarre distortion of reality, sure, great, go for it, get your grove on, and Canon's not for you.
But anybody who generally likes to preserve at least the general impression of a continuous tone curve throughout the image that's consistent with that in the original will either let the shadows be shadows or will fix the light (or use a graduated neutral density filter or blend multiple exposures) -- and, any way you look at it, there isn't a camera on the market today that doesn't have more than ample dynamic range for us.
Besides. Our cameras already have way more dynamic range than our printers and even our displays, so what's the bother?