Nikon D5500 real-world samples: Digital Photography Review

Article

A slight update to the D5300, the Nikon D5500 is a midrange DX-format that sports a 24MP CMOS sensor with no optical low-pass filter (OLPF) and the company's latest Expeed 4 processor. This combination offers an ISO range of 100-25600 and 5 fps burst shooting, while the 39-point AF system can track subjects in '3D'. Other features include a fully articulating 3.2" touchscreen LCD with 1.04M dots and 1080/60p video. We've been using it for a few days - take a look at our gallery of samples.

View our gallery of samples taken with the new Nikon D5500

Comments

Total comments: 129

Let's hope that the D7200 has the same excellent low light IQ. I've pre-ordered one, upgrade 7000 -> 7200.

0 upvotes

The night shot looks excellent

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

1 upvote

Yes they look awesome for an APS-C sensor. This, and the larger capacity battery and small weight is why I want to purchase this camera.

0 upvotes

I'm interested in purchasing this camera, but as I posted below, the skin tones are pasty looking. I'm wondering if adjusting the white balance in camera, making it more magenta, can rectify this issue.

0 upvotes

The skin tones of pics taken with this camera look washed out and pasty.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Does the D 5500 have the same sensor and focusing system etc. as the D 7100/7200?

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Sensor, probably yes.
AF system no it's more or less the same system of the D5200,5300 and D7000

0 upvotes

Why couldn't Nikon have utilized Samsung's 28 MP BSI APS-C sensor for this generation of the 5XXX series...?! Its not that this camera offers anything significantly better than the D5300...

2 upvotes

Does samsung sell that sensor to 3rd parties.
Maybe Nikon has a contract to buy a x amount of Sony sensors.
Samsung may not be able to keep up with demand.
the smaller node might make the sensor to expensive.

There can be many reasons. But why worry. we know this sensor is competitive.

0 upvotes

The D5500 has excellent image quality. I'm looking forward to the review.

4 upvotes

Add AF microadjustment (Canon style), give us pancakes like Canon did, give us smaller f2.8 zooms.
I don't mind about the "plastic" feeling, because overall D5500 is an excellent camera.

0 upvotes

Yes, no microadjustments, tiny tunnel viewfinder, one dial only control, all plastic build...Nobody will confuse this with a higher-end body. Yet, it has a very good sensor, which will almost certainly be underexploited by cheap kit lenses used by soccer moms. There is a big market for this kind of users.

0 upvotes

And a good AF system.

0 upvotes

Nikon is the ONLY company that provides affordable standard prime lens (35mm 1.8 DX at $179). Nikon is also the FIRST company to provide descent APS zoom lenses (12-24, 17-55, 18-135, 18-200 etc). Oh and there are tons of third party lenses too.

I wonder why anyone ever thinks that nikon lacks APS lens. It does not.

2 upvotes

Where are the 20 and 28 mm f/1.8 equivalents (or at least one bright wide prime), where is the 14-24mm f/2,8 equivalent, the 17-55mm is very old and needs replacing, where is a 55-150mm f/2,8 zoom, where are the affordable f4 zooms etc etc. There are so many holes in the DX lineup that is hart even to remember them all.
Thank God Sigma made the 18-35mm f/1,8 and I have a nice fast lens.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

There are tokina 11-16 2.8 for 2.8 UWA, a number of 17-50 2.8 from various brands, and 70-200 2.8 usually works fine for fast telephoto use. If you need fast optics around 75-100mm (effective) focal length, there are 50mm prime lenses for that.

For now no smaller-than-FF system have 20mm 1.8 and 28mm 1.8 equivalent lenses at all (which should be 13mm and 18mm 1.2 respectively). Fuji had excellent 23mm 1.4 lens but again it costs $1000 - you can get FF 35mm 1.8 at $500, and FF bodies are dirt cheap nowadays (D610 costs as low as $1200) so it does not make any sense to release $$$$ APS-only lenses.

So again, if you consider equivalence there is absolutely no point making fast and bright APS-only optics. You can switch to FF and have better optics for less.

Only real advantage of APS is telephoto, where there is absolutely no gain if you reduce the image circle (the lens size and weight is still dominated by actual focal length and f ratio) - so you can simply use FF optics instead.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

It's very clear by now that both Nikon and Canon want it's customers only to have basic APS-C options and move on to FF as soon as possible (where they cash more money).

By definition in a DX lens I understand, smaller, lighter and cheaper (because is cheaper to make than a lens which has to cover a bigger circle). Nikon has in fact very few of those lenses.

Nobody asked for f/1,2 lenses (or maybe very few), just for reasonable f/1,8 , f/2,8 and f/4 options, specialty designed for DX, just like the good and cheep 35mm f1,8 you mentioned.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

I just checked street prices of these:

Fuji 23mm 1.4 (FF 35mm 2.2 equivelnt) - $750
Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX - $500

Fuji 56mm 1.2 (FF 85mm 1.8 equivalent) - $850
Nikon 85mm 1.8 - $450

Wonder who's cashing here :D
(And fuji is the only company who makes lenses somewhat equivalent to FF ones)

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting

2 upvotes

We where discussing about Nikon here. Fuji also makes premium APS-C ILC cameras and lenses. Who is interested in that segment will buy them. For our discussion they are irrelevant.

I don't care about FF DOF equivalent lenses, just in field of view and luminosity equivalences. I can get what I need from third party lens manufacturers, but that's not the point. You stated that Nikon has all DX lenses we need. Well they don't!

3 upvotes

Everything is relative, and fuji is the only APS system that has descent lens lineup so right system to compare to.

Luminosity equivalence? So you prefer phone camera with f1.9 lens to DSLR with f2.8 lens?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I see you like only to deviate form the subject, the whole discussion was about Nikon DX lenses, not cell phones, not Fuji, not third party manufacturers.

nerd2: "I wonder why anyone ever thinks that nikon lacks APS lens. It does not."
I think I explained you pretty well in my above posts.

4 upvotes

Sony has a decent 35 mm f1.8 prime under 200 euro.

0 upvotes

I am quite happy with the Nikon 55-300mm VR lens and Nikon 16-85mm VR but neither is a constant aperature, still useful anyway. Nikon's 17-55mm f2.8 is too expensive, and they need a new one at a price closer to competition from Tamron and Sigma which offer in the 17-50mm f2.8 range. Nikon's 18-140mm VR is quite handy zoom range and somewhat sharp, but the wide end is a bit curved in distortion compared to 16-85mm. The best new one to develop would be a 50-200 f2.8 for DX, new 17-50mm f2.8, along with a Nikon D400 camera and sales would soar I think in DX like Fuji apsc. Why only concentrate on FF, Nikon? Price the D400 a bit more around $1500/1600 or so, and it will still sell to serious enthusiasts and pros.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

@Adrian Van. They can price it even at 2000$ if it's very well specced (over 10 FPS with great AF and 4K video).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting

1 upvote

What I am saying is that

a) From buyer's perspective, nikon DX system does not lack lenses when compared to other small format systems, considering nikon DX system has been around much longer and has much better third party support.

b) Now it makes very little sense to make a specialty APS lens that will be worse than FF body and lens combo.

0 upvotes

FYI - Samsung priced their NX1 (28MP BSI, 15fps with AF tracking and 4K video) at $1500 and criticized a lot for being overpriced.

0 upvotes

Pentax offers affordable standard primes (35mm and 50mm).

1 upvote

@nerd2 . Make a proper research on the other company's smaller sensor lens offerings before you speak, please.

For example:
m4/3 system has a very complete lens collection: www.four-thirds.org/en/common/pdf/caralog2015_en.pdf
Pentax has a very good APS-C lens set.
Fuji is starting to have a very good lens set.
Etc, etc.

Nikon has a very good FF lens offerings but...DX lenses are very few.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

1 upvote

I agree with Nikon having very few good prime DX lenses. BTW I don't like the 35mm f. 8 DX as it has a horrible bokeh. Mine as usually with Nikon Chinese lenses the diaphragm spring broke and Nikon was charging me 90% of the new price to repair it + S&H. . I don't like the manufacturing quality of those G lenses.

0 upvotes

I also owns a 35mm f/1,8 for several years now and had no problems what so ever with it, on the contrary I like it very much. Maybe you got a bad copy.

0 upvotes

I'm sure I've got a bad copy similar than with my D600 oil problems. No problem I'm a millionaire who doesn't care about quality issues.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

"So again, if you consider equivalence there is absolutely no point making fast and bright APS-only optics. You can switch to FF and have better optics for less."

This is precisely what upsets many because we do not want to upgrade to FF. A DX with a small and compact f1.8 prime will produce images that are comparable if not better than using FF with a slow kit zoom. Nikon wants us to and is forcing its hand to increase her profit margins.

1 upvote

"The best new one to develop would be a 50-200 f2.8 for DX, new 17-50mm f2.8, "

I would make a 50-150/2.8 to keep the size of the lens under control — the key advantage of DX over FX is the potential for making smaller and lighter lens. The 17-55 needs to be VR and video friendly (silent AF). However Nikon's short-sighted strategy to overcome declining total dSLR sale is to increase profit margin by forcing us to buy FF. While a FF sensor is technically better than DX, the difference is small and may disappear in actual shooting conditions coupled with the use of fast prime lenses (which Nikon refuses to make).

3 upvotes

I agree Houston, with the trend in the market, wanting smaller systems and mirrorless gaining margins each year, having a good system in high quality DX (with the advantage, making smaller high quality lenses like 17-55mm and 50-150mm for Apsc is what Nikon actually needs. And there are more buyers in enthusiasts and semipros who would buy these systems if high quality and small in scale, as most enthusiasts think DSLRs outperform in AF speed over mirrorless with phase detect, as least that was the general thinking until more recently. Sony is making new strides each year though in AF speed like A77ii in APSC with EVF at 12fps and Canon has dual pixel phase detect sensor. Nikon where is your dual pixel sensor? Or is that a patent thing.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

So you want $1000 fast but heavy, aps-only prime lenses to pair with your $500 APS bodies? How is it any better than using slower $300 lens with $1200 FF body? I cannot understand the logic. 17-55DX came out when the only FF body was $8000 1ds and nikon had $4000 APS flagship (d2x), back then making $1000 APS lens was totally justified. Now it is not.

And sony FF body is compact and lightweight but how much are their lenses? Do you seriously want to spend $1K for 55mm 1.8 prime?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Also I don't think m43 system has any attractive lenses at all, considering their high price yet very slow effective apertures. The reason I compared nikon APS to fuji system is fuji do have a number of lenses that is quite comparable to FF equivalents.

And I did own a m43 system and my father has a pretty high-end m43 system (EM1, 25mm 1.4, 2.8 standard and tele zoom, leica macro lens) so I have quite a bit of experience with m43 system.

0 upvotes

We were actually discussing D7200 (as it likely has D5500 sensor) or Pro DX and ideal new lenses to make.
If Tamron can make a 17-50mm F2.8 in VR or Non VR at $500 to 650 for Apsc and not FF, then maybe Nikon could make something priced around the 650 to 850 range, I am hoping. For DX these lenses do not have to be as wide as FX, or as expensive, unless Nikon wants them to be. Or if price is an issue, constant F4 for 50-150mm might be a consideration, made for DX, not as wide as an FX image circle.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

"So you want $1000 fast but heavy, aps-only prime lenses to pair with your $500 A"

No you miss the point that a DX only prime would be smaller and cheaper than the FX version. The DX only 35/1.8 is <$200 and 200 g while the FX version is >$400 and 3-400 g. This is why you don't want to buy FX lens on a DX camera.

0 upvotes

I'm a DX user but I don't agree with all of you wanting equivalents for every FF prime /zoom lens.
DX 35mm f1.8 is comparable in size /price with 50mm f1.8.
The price for D6x0 is not that prohibitive anymore, very close to D7x00 now.
A 50-150mm f2.8 would not be lighter /cheaper than the excellent 70-200mm f4.
Depending on the usage is just a better option to get a FF body and have access to those f1.8 primes and f4 zooms.
DX needs a cheap /collapsible /plastic mount 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 for budget users, a 'gold ring' /nano coated 12-28mm f4 for enthusiasts, and a direct 7Dmk2 competitor for high-end users with 300mm+ lenses.
FX needs a 24mm f1.8 and a 24-70mm f4 to attract even more DX enthusiasts.

0 upvotes

...and of course don't forget the pancake 40mm f2.8 for FF and the pancake 24mm f2.8 DX.

0 upvotes

A few brands actually have 50-150 f2.8 APS zoom.
Samsung 50-150 2.8 OIS: $1599
Fuji 50-140 2.8 OIS: $1598
Sigma 50-150 2.8 : $1K as I remember (discontinued)

So they are $400 more expensive than excellent nikon 70-200 f4 VR, and nowadays you can get a FF body with $400 extra.

0 upvotes

Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF macro AF for Nikon mount, priced at $789. at a Canadian dealer Photogear, is still being sold. More reasonable price than Nikons 70-200mm f4. I am not saying which is better, just that it is there. Tamron makes some very good lens like its smaller 17-50mm (non-VR) is considered very sharp.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

How can you compare the usability of a native DX 50-150mm on a DX body with a FF 70-200mm on a DX body?

Lol!

0 upvotes

"A 50-150mm f2.8 would not be lighter /cheaper than the excellent 70-200mm f4."

Besides the fl that is too long for the DX, a f2.8 lens is a f2.8 lens in allowing twice the amount of light to reach the sensor thus lowering the ISO needed for a particular shot. A FF f4 just can't shoot at f2.8. To know how small a DX only 50-150 can be, you need to look at the previous gen Sigma and Tokina's versions.

If you have a D71/200, a D6xx is really not an upgrade — poorer AF point coverage will take you one step backward. So the real all around "upgrade" is the $2,200 D750.

None of you can explain what is the reason for the DX users to be *happy* about Nikon not making f1.8 DX only primes in 18 or 16 mm fl? Nikon could have asked all of us to use the FF 35/1.8, but when they did make a DX only 35/1.8, it took the market like storm. There is a great demand for these, while the overall dSLR camera and lens sale are down. Nikon could make a lot of money if they do it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

Unless, Nikon is preparing to exit the DX market eventually to be either a FF only company or a FF-pro plus mirror-less-consuer that replace the whole DX dSLR line. Both of this will cause DX users to slowly go somewhere else (mirror-less). For small and light FF, with the new SONY FE 28/1.8 for $400, you can get a FF (A7) walk around kit for the price of a D750 body alone.

0 upvotes

So let's do some calculation:
D750 + 70-200 f4 VR: $2300 + $1200 = $3500
D7200 + 50-150 f2.8 OIS: $1200+$1600 = $2800

It's $700 difference, or 25% more total system price. But the catch is you only need one body for multiple lenses. So the lens price difference quickly vanishes once you get more lenses.

And nikon forces DX users to go somewhere else? Sony? From what I see they have one or two lens below $1000.... Are you seriously willing to pay $1000 for standard prime?

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

"D750 + 70-200 f4 VR: $2300 + $1200 = $3500"

Match f2.8 with f2.8 please, and OEM vs OEM because the fundamental costs between OEM and 3rd party are very different. Oh Gee, Nikon does not have any 50-150/2.8, don't they? Otherwise try picking the cherry this way ...

D7100 + Sigma 17-50/2.8 VR = $1000+$500 = $1,600
D750 + Nikon 24-70/2.8 no VR = $2200+$1700 = $3,900

"And nikon forces DX users to go somewhere else? "

Or m4/3, like you and I did. Every sale to another company is a loss for Nikon.

2 upvotes

Fact is that Nikon only made 4 DX lenses since introducing 24mp sensors (3 years ago): 18-140, 18-55, 18-300 and 55-200... all slow variable.
They didn't make pro-grade DX lenses since 2003.
I have no reason to believe, they'll change things now.
I'm looking for alternatives, and a D6x0 type of body with F4 zoom lens look really good, as what you loose in aperture you gain in ISO performance.
The only reason to stick with DX (and be happy about it) is the offer from the 3rd party producers (some UWA from Tokina, 18-35/1.8 from Sigma).

0 upvotes

they dont lack lens, they lack good lens, basically, the 35 1.8 DX is their only good affordable lens, no other prime for DX, wide angle prime, 24 and 35 equi.

About zoom, basically Tokina and Sigma overcome Nikon for wide angle and standard DX Zoom.

What Nikon have for DX user are just alot of not good 18-xxx zoom

0 upvotes

why on the earth nikon dont want to put this fantastic sensor on a d300 body!

6 upvotes

Thats a question dpreview should be asking to the nikon people during the interviews they do.

Also should ask about high quality nikkor Dx lenses, it seems that FF lenses on Dx sensors are been used on this first real samples... So if you dont buy a FF camera then nikon wants us to buy the expensive FF lenses for Dx

5 upvotes

We ask them every time we meet them. Every time they give the same answer, which is basically no answer at all.

7 upvotes

Nikon is very much commited to FF nowadays. So what is wrong with that?

1 upvote

@lacikuss: "that" is not wrong, it is mostly right. But, I also think that all these cameras that make photography "accessible" for many people, and at a high quality level, deserve a "bravo" as well.

1 upvote

Im concerning about White Balance in that D7200. Must be just first promotion shooting. Later on when they have proper review they will reveal what went wrong with JPEG engine.

0 upvotes

Stupid me thats not D7200 its D5500. LOL My brain need to wake up! LOL I would be looking forward to see what D7200 is like. Probably will come out much better.

0 upvotes

Absolutely fantastic hi iso performance.

2 upvotes

Similar to the D7200, but this one is all plastic, not just part.

0 upvotes

Why is it the long grass and rocks have been viewed 956 times (as I write this) and the young lady on the stairs has been viewed almost 2,500 times? People don't like rocks?

7 upvotes

That must be it.

11 upvotes

It is because of the composition of the grasses picture. No point of interest unless it's the TINY ship on the horizon; the eye just drifts off to the left with nothing to stop it but most of all, the horizon midway up the image.
That's my excuse anyway.

1 upvote

Great camera, but where are the lenses? Nikon DX lens selection: 4 Primes, one f2.8 standard zoom and two wide zooms (all other are kit or super zoom lenses)

This segment will die next year. Full frames are almost hitting the magic $999 mark. Mirrorless have much better native lens selection and innovations.

Nikon has given up on DX, they are just "milking the cash cow till its bone dry" I would not invest in this system.

8 upvotes

"Nikon DX lens selection: 4 Primes, one f2.8 standard zoom and two wide zooms (all other are kit or super zoom lenses)"

Guess what, you can use all the FF Nikkors you want with DX cameras.

"This segment will die next year. Full frames are almost hitting the magic $999 mark"

Hmm, I have an FF and a DX body. Not planning on retiring my D5300 any soon. When you want to travel light, my D750 + 14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 and/or half a dozen primes isn't exactly ideal... Not to mention that when you're taking tele shots, you definitely want the DX advantage. So, there is a definite advantage in using both DX and FF (I guess it's what they call "best of both worlds"... ;) )

So, no, I don't believe DX will disappear any soon.

13 upvotes

"Guess what, you can use all the FF Nikkors you want with DX cameras."

True, however a number of FX lenses behave much differently when attached to a DX camera. I'm not referring to the dreaded 'equivalence' nonsense, but rather the difference in resolving capability. For example, the sharpness characteristic of my 70-300mm lens is different between my D7000 and D600. Same goes for my primes - I have to perform different levels of corrections for each lens depending on the body it's attached to.

Suffice to say, the OP has a point, despite their conclusion being overly dramatic: You would imagine that Nikon, with all of it's DX bodies available, ought to have more lenses optimized for the format. They don't, and that ought to be of concern.

2 upvotes

It's not the optics! It's the AF system in each camera body!

0 upvotes

I'm sure it's also different between your D600 and another FF model with a different sensor... ;)

I think that the vast majority of people buy DX models because they want a high-quality camera to travel (relatively) light. Meaning what they want is essentially a decent superzoom and (a lot more rarely) maybe a low-light prime. Like the 35mm DX. An even smaller minority may want a DX lens for portraiture, and Nikon has the 85mm f/3.5 DX, which also doubles as a pretty good macro lens (and if you need a faster lens with a creamier bokeh, the 85mm f/1.8 G works just fine on DX, and for about $100 less.)

If I have to fault Nikon for something is their lack of a decent UWA for DX. Something that would compare favorably to the Sigma 8-16. As great as it is, my 14-24 is virtually useless on DX and their DX UWA's are unfortunately not as sharp as Sigma/Tamron/Tokina. Adding insult to injury, they even cost considerably more...

1 upvote

When you want to travel light, you don't want FF lenses. Where is Nikon's EOS 100D+24mm prime?

On the other hand, if you really have to carry the three F/4 zooms, the weight different between D5500 and D610 isn't that great.

2 upvotes

Personally, I use my D5300 with the 18-300 90% of the times. Incredibly flexible and light combo, very decent IQ. Canon doesn't have anything similar.

0 upvotes

Papi61: "I'm sure it's also different between your D600 and another FF model with a different sensor... ;)"

I don't think you quite grasp what I mean by 'resolving capability'. There are several factors that come into play when placing a FX lens on a DX camera. Shifts in convergence (the cause of chromatic aberrations), diffraction, and transmission, all have an effect on resolution. Sometimes, these effects are minor when switching between formats, but often there are jarring differences. Even when you control for differences between sensor technology - such as pixel pitch or total resolution - or autofocus, there's a difference because each lens was designed for a specific sensor size.

Glibly stating that FX lenses can be placed on a DX camera, consequence free, is disingenuous. You're essentially ignoring the complex physics of how photography works and, in turn, doling out incorrect information.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

There you go, losing the argument and starting with the insults. Typical. BTW dennishancock also had a valid point re: AF system.

0 upvotes

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is the best lens on the market for any system and is available for Nikon Dx. Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is a close alternative for wide angle purposes. On the telephoto end you get 1.5x reach so no complaints there. Nikon Dx superzoom lenses are uniquely excellent too.

Your comment is bewildering. Diametrically opposite to true. APS-C has excellent lenses. Maybe your insistence on sticking with Nikon lenses has you blinded.

0 upvotes

"Guess what, you can use all the FF Nikkors you want with DX cameras."

Guess what, I'd rather keep the wide angle, lower weight and lower price!

0 upvotes

There always are third party lenses, and nikon at least provides some good DX lenses (35mm 1.8) at affordable price unlike other manufactures.

0 upvotes

If I wanted to get a pair of good lenses I would go with the sigma 18-35 and 50-150. FF lenses only if I planned on going to nikon FF. If I wanted a small camera I would go with the olympus EM5 II. Much better camera with great lenses. Viewfinder is larger than Canon 1Dx. 5 axis IS is also amazing. I stick to my prediction that low to mid end APS DSLR from nikon will not be around for much longer (or they will just continue making almost the same camera till the sales drop below the point it no longer makes sense). I do like the nikon D7100/D7200.

0 upvotes

Both my Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro 1:1 (small FX lens) and my Nikon 85mm f1.8 work amazingly well on my D300s, which says some FX lens work great with DX. For DX, my Nikon 55-300mm VR is surprisingly fast to autofocus and very sharp despite low cost lens, with 99 per cent keeper rate on D300s. The Nikon 16-85mm VR is an excellent lens also. Would like them to make 17-50mm F2.8 like Tamrons, and also a 50-150 f2.8 for DX would be nice.

0 upvotes

Great natural colours. Were these all taken with the Standard picture control?

1 upvote

Mine were - can't speak for Barney's. Hopefully he'll chime in.

0 upvotes

Hmmm... Nothing particularly special jumped out while viewing. I might be spoiled by the recent and varied Sony offerings. *shrug* (And I don't even work for Sony, honest.)

3 upvotes

Photos have that typical Nikon look with a natural amount of sharpness and somewhat muted colors. They look good though, about the best you could ask for from an APS-C camera.

2 upvotes

Mid range DX format? !

0 upvotes

D3300 low-end DX
D5500 mid-range DX
D7200 high-end DX

And they all share the same sensor.

Easy as 1-2-3... :)

4 upvotes

"D5500 mid-range DX, D7200 high-end DX"

Not sure if I can fully agree with that. In some way, the D5500 outspecs the D7200. D5500 has a modern body that is lighter and smaller than the old shell. Modern touch screen with Touch-AF. Better video 1080/60 in native format no crop mode needed, fully articulated screen, ...etc. You could say that the D7200 is a more sports oriented camera b/c of its AF spec but we can no longer say the D7200 is a higher end camera.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

In terms of build quality and ergonomics, the D7200 is more enthusiast-oriented than the D5500. The smaller size of the D5500 just reinforces the fact that it sits below the D7200 in the line-up.
The same goes for the touchscreen, which most camera manufacturers regard as a consumer feature. Not many high-end cameras have a touchscreen, after all.

0 upvotes

As a user, we should only care about what features are more useful than others. One speculation why the D7200 is so conservatively upgraded is cost. They want to keep the cost down to the same launch price as D7100 even though the yen is lower. In value. After iPhone made the touch screen popular in 2007, 8 years ago, Nikon just made it into one dSLR. D750 had also lost weight so it is clear that Nikon has finally begun to go on a diet knowing that higher grade does not = being heavy.

2 upvotes

Waiting for Pentax K-S2 review, it's going to be cheaper and I think better than the D7200.

11 upvotes

Waiting for a Pentax review? Good luck.

29 upvotes

Not that the DPR staff doesn't have enough to do, but Real World Samples of the same scenes at the same ISO settings from the Nikon D7100 would make for an interesting comparison of the Toshiba/Sony sensors.

3 upvotes

Nice pics but all are taken with large and expensive full frame lenses and not the sort of small and light DX lenses that the body was designed for.

It may show off the sensor at its best but nobody buying a D5500 will be getting the same results.

6 upvotes

Maybe dpreview also wants us to move to full frame by steps.

5 upvotes

I have a D5300 as second camera which i use with my full frame lenses. Besides that many DX lenses show very good performance in the designed image circle.

6 upvotes

I wonder which Dx nikkor lenses are you talking about?? Or are those 3rd party?
I have the d300s so im planing on getting a nikon 24mp dx camera.

0 upvotes

I thought it's the other way. Don't lenses designed for DX perform better on crop sensor?

0 upvotes

If that was the case Nikon wouldn't use FF lenses in their gallery pics of DX cameras on their site.

I think using FF lenses misses out any soft corners so you get better over all sharpness doesn't it?

Maybe the DPR staff will explain why they didn't use DX lenses in these shots?

1 upvote

We didn't have a representative DX zoom in the office. Simple as that. We'll be taking a lot more shots on various lenses as we work on the review.

1 upvote

Cool. But I thought you guys would be rolling in gear over there!

1 upvote

We actually did a bit inventory recently and sent a load of stuff back. Unexpectedly the camera showed up body only. These things happen.

1 upvote

It will be interesting to see how the kit zoom measures up to the lenses you used. I am most impressed with the picture quality.

0 upvotes

Those high ISO images, sorry for saying it, beats the crap out of every micro 4/3 camera on the planet and that together with better IQ, is one of the reasons why there is still a market for those relatively cheap DSLRs.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

20 upvotes

The sensor with 63% larger surface area (both being from similar or even the same generation / manufacturing quality) has better IQ, wow! .... Not exactly a shocking revelation.

But yes, given the low price and other factors (brand recognition, conscious or subconscious bias toward dslr = better, etc.) there isn't just 'still a market' for cheap dslrs, it's a massively larger market due to the aforementioned reasons. Users of more niche cameras such as m43 have to have learned all this information, and then still decide they want to compromise for weight/size or other reasons vs. iq for the money.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

Who cares? Micro 4/3 image quality is good enough, and better than the vast mojority of photographers. Oh and it's much smaller too :D

5 upvotes

m4/3 SONY sensor is a generation behind the current SONY APS-C sensor. I don't know about E-M5 II but the SONY sensor in all other m4/3 are the same generation as SONY A77 and NEX-7's 24mp sensor. SONY updated the 24mp sensor later to fix the poor high-ISO performance.

0 upvotes

I don't think comparison vs m4/3s cameras is the reason why there is still a market for mid to low end DSLRs. I think it is mostly about name recognition, market proliferation and consumer inertia.

4 upvotes

At lens m4/3 has a ton of native lenses, metabones speedbooster and compatibility with almost all photography lens ever made. Don't get anyone started on video quality.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Not just 4/3rds, but APS sensors too. The D5300 has over 1 EV more than the Sony's A5100 (newest APS), so I wonder if Nikon will improve up that.

1 upvote

You bring up a great point. These entry or mid level dslrs not only outperform the micro 4/3 cameras, but at less of a price, and even often in the same size/weight class.

If you compare this Nikon D5500, for example, with the Olympus OMD EM1 or Panasonic GH4, you get very similar size/weight but far better IQ, and AF performance, all at a lower price. Now of course the Pany has 4k for the video crowd, but for stills, the D5500 crushes these micro 4/3 cameras. And this D5500 is a very good video shooter as well.

So if one is looking for relatively small/light, this model is one to look at for price/performance.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting

1 upvote

Well... obviously there is a market for APS-C and it has little to do with most things stated in this discussion...

The reason we buy APS-C cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony is that they also make FF. And this means they can offer crop bodies with excellent features and still earn a lot on the FF. That's why we got the a6000 - the best value for money since... I would say: Nikon D90. That's why we can get the D7200 and the mind-blowing 7Dm2.
Sadly, that's also why E-M1 is the only Olympus body with phase-detection and proper ergonomics. And why X-T1 is better than other Fuji bodies in every possible way. If you're building a system around one sensor model, you have to differentiate on features.
I totally agree the 16Mpx MFT sensor is good enough for most things. Sadly, the sh... CDAF is not. And rubbish EVFs we get in most sub-$1000 models aren't a dream come true, either.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I have the D5500 and the E-M5 M2 and they are both great! I sold my D5300 to get the D5500 after playing with the D5500 at a local camera store. Nikon really nailed it with the touch screen on this one. Menus and changing settings is lightning fast.

The one thing that has always torqued me about Nikon is that I frequently use tethered shooting in the studio. Nikon charges almost $200 for their Camera Control Pro 2 software that looks like Fred Flintstone designed it; and forget about any technical support for the software.

I can tether my E-M5 M2 and Olympus supplies their VASTLY SUPERIOR tethering software as a FREE download. I'm not a Canon shooter but even the Canon tethering software comes free with the camera.

Nikon, helllooo...., earth to Nikon, please respond...

1 upvote

A couple Queen's songs came to my head after seeing those rollerblade girls.

2 upvotes

f b g :)

1 upvote

That and Bicycle (which mentions the f b g song)!

0 upvotes

Very nice. So some people are also suggesting the D7200 may get the same sensor as D5500 according to rumor. The low light images at 5000 iso of girls roller blading/skating looked impressive, and also some of the night building photos in high iso looked great.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the D7200 has the same sensor as the D5500/5300/3300. It's probably the best DX sensor in the world, as opposed to the old one in the D7100, which clearly had some issues.

3 upvotes

There were photo samples of roller blading girls in the new Olympus em5 mark 2, and this is a clear example why the apsc size sensor or this Sony sensor is better than latest m43 sensor, for far less noise, while holding detail going into 5000 and 6400 iso and smoother tones. The D7200 could be worth the premium to buy over a D7100. Nice to see them keep the price similar to when D7100 was released. For general consumer the D5500 has a great sensor, lightweight body and rotating screen with great video 1080 60P, which are good reasons to buy.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Article

Nikon D5500 real-world samples

Buying Options

Comments