I think it depends on how you like to shoot.
I've found matrix too hit and miss, so just stopped using it.
Even for landscapes, I do manual matrix
metering in that I'll set the spot point over on the highlight, or shadow I want captured as well, then back onto the subject I'm more interested in for the
exposure.
For highlights, I'll add a filter where practical, otherwise just expose a little darker on the subject(where practical) knowing that I can regain
exposure latitude back in PP on both
exposure points.
Of course there are times when you're simply going to blow highlights or lose shadow detail no matter what .. the
metering type used makes no difference, that's just a dynamic range issue for that sensor.
I think my main gripe with matrix is that neither the
metering system, nor the camera's other features really understands that a white subject is white, grey, black or pink!
And I don't trust them to predict what it is that it sees.
eg. if you just
meter on a white cloud with zero compensation(ie. neutral) the
exposure the camera will output will be that ubiquitous 18% grey value that it's calibrated to do so.
But I don't want grey clouds, I want white ones, so I always
meter on a cloud, pop
exposure compensation +ively up to about +0.7 or +1.0 Ev, which then meters that part of the subject matter as white instead of grey.
Take a
shutter speed reading and then balance the use of filter, and
exposure latitude as best as I can for the scene.
Sometimes there are parts of a scene that simply are impossible to capture correctly. eg. the sun. if you try to capture a scene with the sun in it, and any shadowy areas as well, and those dark areas are important, then the sun blowing out really doesn't matter much.
It's the sun, and my choice is to always allow it to blow out(usually).
I know my methods are slow, and it is done deliberately so.