Shooting with big, bulky equipment, regardless of results, is not fun IMO. You, at one time, felt the same way.
It's not much different than shooting with a large, solid tripod. Sure you can get more stable results, but schlepping a tripod through the course of a day is not fun, IMO, and is not even allowed in many areas.
BTW, as I understand it (and I may be wrong, but this is what I heard a Panasonic rep), the new firmware of the GH5 will allow the user to shoot in HDR (HLG) and play it directly on to an HDR capable display like an LG OLED. If this is the case, it would allow HDR without the fuss of RAW. If that's the case, that blows away any other approach I've seen from the standpoint of simplicity.
With that said, most of the results I've seen from non-professionals shooting HDR, are less than appealing to me. It certainly looks nothing like the better HDR I've seen when its done right in professional productions. At best, I'd call it a weak representation of HDR. Unless you've seen what HDR can really look like on a high-end display, it's hard to appreciate how different it looks from 'amateur' results. For the record, I'm not expecting the HLG of the GH5 to look anything like what the pros can do. So I have no false expectations.
On another note, since I've had extensive experience watching all forms of HDR, even much of the professional HDR can look pretty abysmal. Some of it is so overdone, it simply screams out "Look at me, I'm HDR". It bears no resemblance to the real world we see. Just watch some of the night scenes on many HDR productions, and you'll see street lights and signs that are 100x brighter than how we see those same scenes with our naked eyes.
So yes, HDR has potential, but it's really really tough to get HDR to look like what it should look like when done right.