I shoot other Canon and Nikon bodies, a 40D, a 600D, a D800, and I must admit that they have much better and more enjoyable evaluative metering algorithms, and I actually trust those cameras much more than my otherwise beloved 5DmkIII, that actually I trust not at all in high contrast situations.
What do you mean by "trust"? You are the one responsible for the exposure. You just need to understand the algorithm and use it appropriately. There is no perfect algorithm and the camera cannot know how you want to expose.
You are right, knowing and using the equipment is owner's responsibility. But let me give to you one real example. I was in NYC last year, and at night I suddendly saw a Fire Brigade truck coming full throttle to cope with an emergency, with all the light on, and lots of people staring. I felt it was a nice shot to catch, pulled out my 5DmkIII with 24-105 and fired a couple of shots. Well, both those shots were unfortunate in the sense that the AF point was near or on one of the head light of the truck, and the pic was completely dark except 5 or 6 perfectly exposed head light of the truck. Now that pic was pretty unusable, and a waste.
The real problem is that the designer does not consider two important things:
1. to put a "cap" on the exposure shift, say max 2 stops
2. to consider that with a 63 zone metering system, you cannot distinguish if a light source is wide enough to be "significant" to the photographer, or if it is a 1% of the image area completely irrelevant as in my case was the truck head light.
I assume that 1DX (and D800 as well) having a metering system with 100K points, are far more "intelligent" in knowing if a bright point source is big enough to be of some significance or not.
All in all, this evaluative metering is not evaluative at all, and should be marketed as AF-linked spot meter, giving *another* exposure choice as true evaluative metering option.
Note that in the last 3 images I linked above, the "evaluative" metering when in MF gave the same result as the average metering, so that the evaluative is not "intelligent" or "different" at all, at least in this example.
Tis is my opinion btw, just my feeling about this feature.