for me the wider issue is also that if when i import my raw files into lightroom, what looked initially acceptable (good histogram no clipping, not much blur) mostly gets zeroed out in the raw converter into a really nasty looking 'exposure' what is the point of tring to expose and get things right in camera, if i then have to go and fiddle around to get it looking like what i thought id exposed for!
i can understand why phtography rules must be such a pain for proffesional photographers now if the initial raw photo looks dull as muck before you tweak it back to something acceptable!
If you set Lightroom to open the file with all sliders at zero, of course it is going to look dull on the display. Mine looks relatively dull even though it opens to Lightroom's default auto correction, rather than "zero". I am using Lightroom 4. If you are using 5, I've not tried it. It's possible version 5 performs an even more dull, flattened RAW conversion.
There is a form of artistic control that is allowed and encouraged with digital photography. This should be embraced, not avoided, or thought of as "too subjective to portray reality".
If you don't want to do any post processing, just shoot the pictures as jpegs, and keep experimenting with the camera's picture styles until you get something you think you can live with most of the time. Otherwise, just learn to edit, and make your own develop profiles for Lightroom. It's kind of fun after a while.
And again, the light meter on pretty much all digital cameras I have ever used, becomes less accurate as the available light decreases. This is even true of the beloved 5D3 and 1DX. They all tend to give you an underexposure if you look at the RGB curves. Also as the light gets very low or lacks contrast, the "auto white balance" becomes a whole lot less accurate...
One other variable, is the type of metering you choose for a particular shot. "Evaluative", "center weighted average"..."spot"...etc.