I am definitely not happy with this exclusion. The PQ mode doesn't do enough for most of the high dynamic range shooting that I do.... landscapes etc. And, realistic or not, HDR vivid works very well for me much of the time. Using HDR in all my Canon's since the 5D II has been very welcomed.
I added the below shot later, but in the wrong spot. I like it better, as it's zoomed out to 70mm, so has less of the slightly overexposed snow, and the splash of color that the two aspen provide (2 of thousands if not millions that graced my images, shot over 12 days, mostly in BC and Alberta)-sadly, the larch had lost all their needles.. but I got them just in the last week at Mt Hood, coming down from Rainier, and in the Leavenworth area!
Why? I shoot high volumes, often with multiple cameras, and HDR allows me to usually get high enough quality from the in camera produced HDR to be able to present the images. It saves hours of shooting bracketed shots and editing them. Of course, all three raw files are there and available to use as needed. Yes, often a single raw is all that is needed to edit into a usable image and save as a .tiff, which isn't possible with the in camera produced jpeg. My experience with the PQ mode is "meh"' Here is a slightly overexposed one, taken north of Lake Louise, the morning before the amazing KP9- aurora which I captured at Peyto Lake, along with 20-40 other shooters.
Attached is the unedited PQ raw original, as a jpeg, and an edited version. I like it, but do feel that an HDR vivid shot, @+3, processed by my R5, would have better detail in the brightest snow Details RF70-200 f/2.8@124mm, 1/500 f/9, ISO 200
