Hi Everyone,

Here some shots of architecture of buildings at school; I used sunny 16 ( f16, 1/125s, 100 ISO) with no compensation on K-50. Can someone let me know if these are 'underexposed'? Do your sunny 16 exposures look similar or is this camera underexposing. Thanks in advance and enjoy!

[LaHo]

I would say that these images (it's a pity they are all turned on the side) are pretty well exposed. Bright portions of the sky are not burned out, and there are still visible details in the shadow areas (except perhaps the last one), and these images are of high contrast scenes.
Why don't you shoot first with "Sunny 16" and then the same scenes with auto exposure and compare?

Anyway - I would say that these images confirm that the "Sunny 16"-rule is not wide off the mark.

[Edit:] Please remember that the "Sunny 16"-rule was developed in the analog era, i.e. for film, and that (negative) film still has more latitude and can handle exposure error better than digital.
With digital, overexposure will result in ugly, burned-out areas that cannot be salvaged, whereas underexposure often is easily correctable in post-processing, so slight underexposure is probably a good thing.