This is the camera I've been looking for. My interest in photography goes way back, but it wasn't until I got my first iPhone (the 4S) that I was able to start exploring. From there, I bought a Fuji HS30EXR, which was very highly recommended, and had awful image quality; next, I purchased a Sony NEX-6, which was light-years ahead of the Fuji, but I always felt like something was missing. So I bought the Sony a6000 and suffered immediate buyer's remorse (though I eventually bought its little brother, the RX100 m2, which is my much-loved coat-pocket camera). I was always looking for that missing something. And not being trained at all in photography, never having taken any classes, and having to learn everything on my own from books and websites, I could never put my finger on what that something was. Until I discovered the D5500. The D5500 takes great pictures. It's also harder to use than the a6000. But it feels like a real camera. It's comfortable in my (somewhat large) hands. Compared to the CSC Sony cameras I've owned, it feels more like a tool than a toy. As I say, it's more challenging to use (no Focus Peaking!), and as a result, I'm more satisfied when I take a decent exposure. And it is sharp, in part because modern Nikons lack anti-aliasing filters. An Anti-Aliasing Filter serves to soften your images to prevent moiré- a sort of banding that occurs in high-contrast patterns (think a striped dress) when recorded by a digital sensor. (You may have seen these patterns on an old tube t.v. screen when you were a kid, too.) In my opinion, the benefit of having 24mp is not that you necessarily get a "better" image- you get more room to crop. I like to take pictures of the moon, and it's nice to be able to zoom in and inspect the surface. The Sony's were way too soft when zoomed in at 50%, let alone 100%. This may not be the case for the full-frame Sony cameras, but the APS-C models leave a lot to be desired. As far as those cameras are concerned, 24mp is about 16mp wasted. The D5500 feels great in hand, nice and light, but still substantial, with a good amount of grip, and it truly is optimized to help amatuers like me get the shot they want. It's fast (though not as quick in burst mode as the a6000), and the touchscreen is a treat coming from Sony (menus within menus within menus within menus...), making it super easy to change aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc. The lens selection is fantastic, whether you go Nikon or third-party (I've already added the AF-S 35mm and the 55-200mm VRII to my bag), although there is an obvious emphasis on pro gear. The D5500 is the camera for me. Every single box (image quality, feel, looks) is neatly checked. I find myself spending less time in Lightroom and more time with a camera in my hands, and I find that leaving things like ISO up to the camera (unthinkable on Sony's APS-C cameras, which render unusable images after ISO 6400 or so) not only renders great images, but makes it that much easier (and enjoyable) for me to bungle my way through this silly, expensive hobby of mine. I would recommend this camera to everyone who wants to go beyond smartphones and point-and-shoots. Side note- I chose the D5500 over the D7200 for several reasons that you may or may not agree with, but here they are: 1. The D5500 and the D7200 have the same sensor. IQ should be the same. 2. The D7200 is $400 more. Although I love my D5500, I will probably not be as fond of it in three or four years. But the lenses could conceivably last for decades with proper care. As better photographers than me have said, buy only as much camera as you need, and spend the rest on lenses. 3. Simpler exterior. I'm not ready for all the buttons and dials yet. Stepping up to the D7000 series will be next, but that's several years from now. I felt it was better to become accustomed to the DSLR form factor before dropping $1100 on the camera body alone. As far as the Nikon vs. Canon debate is concerned, I'm uninterested. I chose the D5500 over the comparable Canons for a couple of reasons. 1. Nikon bodies seem to cost less than their Canon counterparts, but are rated more highly; the Canon t6s is more expensive and does not perform as well. Ditto the 70d. 2. Nikon has legacy lens support unmatched by Canon. Will I ever take advantage of it? Who knows, but I like the idea. 3. Canon DSLR's don't render color as well, in my opinion, Easy fix, I know- but still. That being said, I'm certain that a skilled photographer could get great pictures from just about anything, so don't get yourself bogged down in fruitless Nikon vs. Canon, DSLR vs. Mirrorless/M43, Android vs. Apple type debates. Just take pictures!
