It's a misconception to think that you can't get all the higher zones in the subject onto the paper if the subject range is way beyond the traditional 10 zones. I like this shot as an example. It's on film, and I measured a 16 stop range (including the sunlit wall outside the window) when I shot it. I set an exposure based on zone three shadow detail and let the bright areas take care of themselves. Though it's processed digitally from the negative, all the information is there, and I could have gotten it into the print with a LOT of burning and dodging.
Personally, the only thing I've ever used the zone system for is for understanding what zone three means, and how to place it. That's worth the whole system, right there.
The reason for basing exposure on the shadows is because underexposed blank film is blank--you can't print anything from it if it's not there. At the other end, though, detail maybe doesn't go on forever, but for at least 16 stops, probably 20, so it's there to drag out in the printing. The original intent of the zone system was, I think, to fit scenes like my picture into a better fit with printing by compressing the 16 zones into something the paper could handle with less burning and dodging.
Slides have only about 6 subject stops of range, and they suffer the problem negatives do in the shadow areas at both ends: underexposure is black and unprintable as on a neg, but also, highlights turn clear and can't be burned in as with a neg. So, in summary: slides, 6 stops range, with solid bookends; film, maybe 20 stops of range, with a soft boundary at the top end.
My Nikon D300 gives about an 8 stop range, and the best newest camera give about 12 between pure black and pure white--the same problem slides have, hard boundaries: once you get white, there's no headroom. And that's why I'm still shooting mainly film, waiting for a camera that will handle the tonal range I customarily need.
The picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/6929081535/sizes/l/in/photostream/