What hit me between the eyes was your statement that an SLR has 5 or 6 stops of range. Whoa -- 12 bit A/D and 6 significant bits of data.
I can think of several possible explanations:
1) The article considers darker zones unusable because of significant "banding" from few intermediate levels. Here a 12 bit converter should push that problem several zones further away. (In this case I should go ahead with my upgrade.)
2) We have a triumph of marketing over engineering. Perhaps, consumer sensors can't really produce a true 12 bit image. You get a 12 bit value but the low order 6 are just noise. (In this case, I should save my money for something else.)
3) Most likely. The article meant something else by this comment and I just haven't figured it out yet.
A DSLR has 12 bits of sensor data. Roughly 10 of those are usable. Since the sensor is linear in response, that means there is usable data over 10 stops of light.
This is 10 stops of range to some people.
To other people this is 5-6 stops.
I don't know for sure why this is so, but I did observe when testing my camera with pictures of a blank white wall and counted range as the difference between the brightest and darkest shots that showed ALL the texture of the wall, I got a figure around 4 stops lower than the number of usable bits. I attribute this to the wall actually having several stops of brightness difference even though the whole wall looked white to the eye.
What this means to me is a DSLR with 10 usable bits will capture all detail from zones 3 to 7, most detail in zones 2 and 8, and some detail in zones 1 and 9. You can call that a range of 5-6 stops, or 9-10 stops, however you want.