Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave Sharpness was just an example, and it's just as easy for people to fall into the same logical trap with dynamic range. To think that because dynamic range is objectively measurable then it's a quality that a photo objectively must have. Personally I fell into that dynamic range trap myself when I first went digital, and it's only quite recently that I've rediscovered that areas of solid black can be quite beautiful in a photo -- something I used to take for granted in my Kodachrome days.
At the photo level, you are right. Some images do not need high-DR (e.g., well-lit interiors) and some even benefit from low-DR (e.g., the use of image noise or black/white clipping to create mood).
However, at the level of a camera, I disagree. Given a choice between two completely identical camera models with identical prices, features, etc., with the only difference being the DR, would anyone say "no, I don't want the high-DR model, I prefer the low-DR model"? Why would anyone explicitly seek a low-DR camera given that in-camera or post-processing can readily add noise and clipping to simulate a low-DR effect?
Naturally, in the real market for real cameras, the high-DR models are not identical to the low-DR models in every way except DR. The high-DR models typically come with trade-offs such as higher prices, larger bodies, larger lenses, slower frame rates, worse video, CMOS (versus CCD) colors, brand new versus vintage/nostalgic bodies, etc. A photographer might explicitly prefer a small old used CCD camera and not mind the low-DR that comes with it.
Your deeper point is true: just because something is measurable, does not make it objectively better. Physical size is the best example of that -- some people prefer smaller cameras (but not too small) and some prefer bigger cameras (but not too big).
P.S. I like your point about distinguishing among the different technical dimensions of camera performance such as DR and resolution rather than use fuzzy terms like IQ. At both the levels of the photodiodes and the sensor read-out systems, there is a very strong trade-off between DR and resolution. Higher resolution cameras (in a given format) require smaller noisier pixels and faster noisier read-out systems. And if you change formats, higher resolution still has DR implications for read-out and adds some addition DR challenges with the larger sensor which is why the K-1 has a slower frame rate than the K-3.