I have the Samsung NX300 and the touchscreen can be disabled easily in the menu. I suppose the same feature will be in the Nikon D5500.
In my personal experience (I use my cameras only for stills), I don't find the touch screen useful, for that reason I never activate it (when it is active is prone to make mistakes). That said, it could be an attractive and useful feature for some users, definitely more interesting in video. The D5300 and the D5500 are excellent cameras for both, videos and stills, then it is a welcome add.

Of course every brand is free to add EVERYTHING functional to the DSRL...,still From Nikon I expect to perform serious adds on (dof button,micro AF adjust...) to their DSRLs.The question is:why to add something You can not ever use and not something Very Important to serious photogaphy?
Everyone is aware that DX cameras have MORE DoF than FX,so DoF preview button is almost vital.
A lot of third part lenses are not well calibrated to obtain a perfect focus,so is almost vital to have control on this.An out of focus picture or one with the wrong bokeh,are worst than having or not a touch screen

I think it's similar to slower shutter effect, when each frame are motion-blurred because of slower shutter speed. This effect makes movie run smooth from frame to frame. Try to pause a dvd move while watching, you'll see that most of them (single frames) more or less are blurred.

@mjckwack
Cameras are more than just sensors and IQ. If you want to photograph stills/test charts, then the D810 is better for your. The 1DX outperforms the D810 easily when it gets to performance (animal/sports/etc), customization (especially continuous autofocus configuration) and dynamic range on ISO above 640 (on less ISO the D810 is better). The cameras are so different that you really can't compare them. The D4 is the one that should be compared with the 1DX because those both are made for the same purpose.

And don't forget, dxo is biased and their calculations are somewhat odd (pmpix; normalized data they show you by default,..). I trust more the sites which offer raw files of the same test scene. Just to remind to don't trust only one source giving you just normalized numbers.

Anyways I don't care if it is canon or nikon, I sometimes have borrowed Nikon equipment but can't see the great difference DXO shows (except when I take photos of testcharts, but whose hobby is that?).

@PredatorsPrey
I agree fully that the single DxOMark score is nearly useless. However, the DxO site posts graphs of all their measurements that allow you to make a much more informed decision. For instance, based on the DxOMark score the D7100 would appear to be a far better camera than the 7DII. But if you dig into the dynamic range measurements at higher ISOs where the birders and sports shooters are likely to be photographing, you see the sensors perform pretty much the same, making the 7DII's buffer and autofocus that much more compelling for those types of shooters.

They sure did a lot more then Canon did with the 700d.

+1

"Silver Standard" for:
"Another entry level Nikon masterpiece, which makes upgrading from the D3300 an absolute 'must'".

It should be "Gold Standard" for:
"especially with not having this horrible GPS anymore.".

But "Gold Standard" is/are used up for camera like D750 for example.

Sorry Nikon D5500.

I think as long as they do certain things better.
A Dslr is still unbeatable for action photo's.
And the Nikon/Canon lens-lineup is still unbeatable.

However on both fronts the mirrorless camera's are catching up fast. And they rival/beat Dslr's in image quality. Blow them away in video capability and overall portability

My camera of choice too.
However the D5500 will do certain things better. And to be honest most of the stuff inside the D5500 are cutting edge. Second best Apsc sensor(not sure Samsung sells their 28mp BSI Cmos to 3rd parties.)

The 39 point AF system still is a solid system even by todays standards. touchscreen is a Nikon first. And it has 1080p 60 fps. Which Canon only offers on the overpriced 7d mk2

Canon is selling old tech. a 5 year old sensor in 80-90% of their ILC sales for crying out loud. Nikon they are conservative. But they do give use proper sensors across their entire line-up

@Nindy5

Err, that LX100 costs 50% more here currently than the Canon 100D with 18-55 STM lens and 60% more than a D3300 (with similar lens.)

I wouldn't dream to compare these 3 camera actually, but it's clear than it's neither Canon or Nikon that are the ones taking us for a ride..

@ Nindy, do you have some campaign against DSLR or something..?

I use both DSLR and (it seems, mostly..) EVIL and see discontinued models of both each year(that's where I got mine from..), surely that's the consequence of a yearly replacement cycle and not the camera type?!

I still see far more DSLR users (by far..) than I do of any other camera type except mobile phones, but that doesn't make mobile phones better..

SLR will survive as long as there's advantage to its use. You can have better success with fast action when shooting with SLR. There are some mirrorless cameras catching up, but they're not there yet. Besides some ppl don't like the EVF.

The Nikons have had decent video features for a couple generations now, with uncompressed HDMI output on even the D3300 for example.

So I'm not sure what you're complaining about really.

The video in the D800 is, by most accounts, excellent. The last 2 seasons of Dexter, for example, were filmed with it. It was also the first DSLR form factor to be able to record uncompressed video to an external device. Other than Canon's video dedicated C series, Nikon's offerings stand up well to Canon's video DSLRs.

Because many people don't shoot video with their DSLR. I take mostly still pictures with mine. If you have used the D800, it's video is very good if you need to shoot video.

Just because a company fails doesn't mean the industry disappears. Theoretically those people would get jobs at the other companies who use innovation to sell cameras instead of the entrenched position as the market leader. I don't understand what Pentax has to do with this, though, they're not taking market share away from anyone at this point...

But of course once you have Sony dominating the mirrorless market, why won't they stop innovating and just cash in just like canon and nikon have?

So basically Canon and Nikon are ruining everything for the mirrorless makers by competing with them? And the loss of this major competition would somehow stimulate innovation?
That's not how it works at all. If other companies were to take the place as market leaders, they would behave exactly as Canon and Nikon do. The smaller players are more innovative because they have to be, given their position in the market.

Normally, no one benefits from an oligopoly/duopoly such as the current DSLR market except the oligopolists. Read up on oligopoly in Wikipedia, that should clear things up for you. I think we're clearly seeing the price consumers pay for an oligopoly in Canon and Nikon's sluggish pace of innovation, specifically their refusal to introduce a competitive mirrorless ILC with a larger sensor and full lens lineup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

Well, if you understand oligopolies, then you'll understand that it's difficult for competitors to innovate because if they are successful, the oligopolist simply comes and matches their offering with a comparable offering, taking back the gained market share and making their investment in R&D worthless. Competitors know this, so they don't do it in the first place. That's how an oligopoly stymies competition. To what extent does that appy to the DSLR market? More than none, but not completely, I'd assume.

Peiasdf and yet the market share of the also rans remains quite small. How do you explain that, if they are the ones with the innovative products?

If Canon and Nikon stopped their oligopoly on DSLRs, it will be SONY, PANA, and maybe SAMSUNG doing oligopoly on mirrorless.
And it would be far worse than Canikon's oligopoly. At least for now, we can choose between DSLRs and mirrorless.

If they at least made if pink from factory.. that would be something..

@Retzius
exactly, and i've bought my D7000 back in 2012..16 MP is still plenty of MP and well enough, at least for APS-C/DX Sensor size.

The 24 MP AA-less DX Sensor needs very good glas, and i seriously doubt that any of the D3x00 Buyers for instance would use everything else than the Kitlens, at least perhaps the 35mm/1.8 DX AF-S, but not much more.

And the 18-55 VR II, even it's a nice Kitlens after all, can't resolve 24 MP seriously.

The Nikon 1 Series failed for Marketing Guys, and "Pro Users", but you can get decent pictures out of it. I do love my V1 & 18.5/1.8 combo much - great EVF, great build ("not plastique-drastique"), and the prime is way good, especially on the V1.

Instead of updating the 55-200/4-5.6 to VR II Level and smaller Zoom, Nikon should have had released a 23mm/1.8 AF-S DX, i'm waiting already Aeons for this lens...

Tonkotsu.
Think for a moment.
This is a photography gear site.
The Nikon D5500 is a interesting product.

The D5xxx series is probably the best selling Nikon Dslr line
It has a touchscreen(finally a Nikon first)

And then there hasn't been anything remotely exciting released in the last weeks

The last line explained it.

Though I was seriously wondering how much, because the fuji lens article seems to have more attention, then suddenly the nikon article is pulled to the top.
So just wondering how their ad process works. Fuji didn't pay enough? Nikon paid more? They endorse a camera that is getting less attention than a lens..? They have amazon links under both articles, so it's not like they're losing the clicks.

Yea and?

We do not solicit or accept payment for the featured homepage slot. It's an editorial decision.