I reported a couple of weeks ago that in 2025 Fujifilm surpassed Nikon to become the third largest digital camera brand. That fact has been discussed at length across the internet, but my takeaways were 1) that the camera industry as a whole has continued to grow from rock-bottom sales around 2022/2023, 2) Fujifilm has been growing rapidly the last couple of years, selling nearly three times as many digital cameras in 2025 as they did in 2023, 3) Fujifilm is the first brand outside of Canon and Sony to top one million units sold in several years (however, exceeding one million was much less impressive not very far in the past), and 4) if you counted total cameras sold and not restrict it to just digital, Fujifilm is likely the second largest camera brand, exceeding Sony and coming in just behind Canon—Instax is way more popular than X and GFX combined.
In my opinion, where exactly each brand ranks is not all that important, and more gee-whiz than anything else. Who really cares which brand is number one or number three or whatever? I only bring it up because it illustrates the good position Fujifilm is currently in, with strong sales that continue to grow, a trend that I hope extends into the future, but could certainly change from one year to the next.
With that said, PetaPixel posted an article (and companion video) entitled Fujifilm Didn’t Actually Jump Ahead of Nikon in Mirrorless that’s a bit deceptive, seemingly intended to come to Nikon’s public image rescue. Oh, no, no, no—Nikon is really in third place, and not Fujifilm, because they sold more mirrorless cameras. But when you dig into it, it’s actually interchangeable-lens mirrorless, as it excludes fixed-lens cameras like the X100VI, GFX100RF, X half, and Instax Evo, that technically are mirrorless, but for the sake of this data were put into a different category. So basically, if you remove the most viral camera in history from Fujifilm’s numbers plus a handful of other models, yes, Nikon remains at number three. PetaPixel conveniently forgets to mention the X100VI and GFX100RF, and focuses on the “other” models, as a way to put down Fujifilm—even diminishing the massive X half sales success in Asia by focusing solely on its mediocre sales in America, specifically stating that it “became a pack-in bonus item with some Fujifilm X Series cameras at retailers”, which as we discussed at the time, was actually just one camera (the X-T5) bundled with one particular lens (16-80mm f/4) at one specific camera store (Adorama) for a very limited time (definitely not “some cameras” or “retailers”—the plural is a lie that I truly hope is not intentional, because that reflects very poorly on PetaPixel, something they should correct immediately and apologize for).
“Depending on the impact of Fujifilm Instax Evo and X half sales,” PetaPixel says, “the company’s success, and more importantly, Nikon’s failure, takes on an entirely different meaning that broad industry market shares cannot adequately reflect.” If you exclude a market segment that one brand is doing quite well in (and the other is not even dipping its toes in), it changes the outcome. TikTok is the number one social media app, if you exclude Meta. Dodge sells more pickup trucks than Ford, if you don’t count the F-150. Nikon beats Fujifilm, if you don’t count the X100VI and a handful of other models. See how it works? It’s stupid. I have no idea why Fujifilm coming in third bothers PetaPixel so much, and why they feel the need to cook the books so that they can say Nikon is actually the brand that’s in third place.
Like I said, I don’t think any of this actually matters. These rankings change all the time. I remember when Pentax was one of the big three, and now they barely exist, outside of the very popular Ricoh GR series, which is only sort of Pentax, since Ricoh owns Pentax (it’s like including Kia with Hyundai). Canon won’t stay number one forever. Sony could move up or down. Fujifilm might be in third place for one year and then back to fourth in the 2026 numbers, or maybe even number one someday. Who knows? It’s nothing to get overly wrapped up in, and—as always—take it with a grain of salt.
What’s disappointing to me is PetaPixel twisting into a pretzel to reframe it. Why be dishonest? It’s true that Nikon is the third largest when it comes to mirrorless interchangeable-lens models, but that shouldn’t diminish Fujifilm from being the third largest digital camera brand overall. Both can be true at once. Perhaps there is a more interesting story that PetaPixel totally missed: how can a digital camera brand that only makes mirrorless models be number three overall but number four when you just account for mirrorless? Obviously the difference is because the “mirrorless” category is not appropriately named, and excludes many mirrorless models—some very, very popular models, like the most viral camera in history. Is the so-called “mirrorless” category even meaningful? How are the models that were excluded (like the X100VI) impacting the industry? Is Nikon missing out on a major market share? Do they need to make a fixed-lens model to see market growth going forward? There’s a lot that they could have covered that would have been quite interesting, but they chose not to; instead, we got a bit of dishonesty in what’s obviously intended to make Nikon look better by attempting to make Fujifilm look worse. Weird. PetaPixel can and should do better.
Hola, las estadísticas sobre la cantidad de ventas siempre son subjetivas y dependen del marketing la propaganda y otros intereses. Lo importante para mí es la calidad y las prestaciones que estas cámaras pueden ofrecer, y ahí de largo Fujifilm en la actualidad supera a Nikon y quizás a otras marcas. Todo esto es solo mi opinión fundamentada en mi experiencia. Un saludo.
¡Aprecio tus aportaciones sobre este tema! Para mí, Fujifilm ofrece cosas que ninguna otra marca ofrece.
Greets.
To me, photography is done 80% pre and in the camera. With film, post processing certainly existed, even other than intriguing development chemicals, the current craze is coffee. Routine dodging during enlargement was of course de-rigueur. However, once the eggs had hatched, little was possible without employing the skills of the highest paid in the trade, the retouchers.
I have come to believe, despite Rockers et al best efforts, we are under attack from an hacker mentality that doesn’t want to do anything but play with software suites on their computers that most of the GP has never heard of.
(This paragraph is for those whose tripod costs more than a good lens.)
We do have further divisions though.
Some pros use pixel shifting for high res. Never met one who wasn’t using a ‘Blad.
Some of us extensively use stitching. A real bum pain and very niche, but often he only way.
I believe all who photograph static things digitally, stack. We have to. (Otherwise, 10 x 8 or more.)
Even occasionally, I stack and stitch.
This is the development that exploits the near vibration free mirrorless digital camera.
Novoflex even have a motorised semi auto bellows rig especially for this. Up to Medium Format.
N.B.
Ideally, to avoid perspective issues, the objective needs to be be static. Move the sensor (camera body or digiback). Hence the rig. When close, relying on your camera to refocus the lens does work but gives rather Andy Warhol results. Mid distance, bolt it down fire it up and have a pasty.
Lots of papers on this, in German, if you must. Associated techniques can also make transient moving objects disappear.
All the above use software suites that in a different life, I would have been proud to have assisted with.
The time overheads building a full image are unavoidable. Faster computer!
Lightroom is not your workflow friend but for many I believe, it has become their raison d’etre.
Cropping and correcting / choosing the angle, for me, is almost always enough.
Fuji, bar Canon’s delicious autolevelling, encourage and facilitate getting it right on the “negative”.
Proper photography. “Chapeau”!
Still save Raw 1, Jpeg 2 though, even if I never touch the Raw.
Rgds.
Malcolm Hayward.
I would love to see auto-leveling in my Fujifilm cameras. Even with the electronic level, I’m so bad at getting a straight picture. Would save me time later not having to straighten my crooked pictures!
Well, goes to show Nikon should have kept up with successors to the Coolpix A.
Basically a Nikon equivalent to an X70 or GR, it had an 18mm f/2.8 lens, 16mp APS-C sensor.
Those would sell like hotcakes today.
They definitely should have. Also, a fixed-lens camera in the “f” (retro) series would have been a big hit. It’s not too late, they could work on them right now.
The comments on Fuji Rumors that the picture of Ritchie is AI generated on their post discussing the brouhaha are hilarious!
Ha ha, I’m just seeing this now. 🤣
I’m getting pretty tired of PetaPixel tbh. They’re no longer credible, if they ever were. This is yet more evidence.
I’ve been noticing that, too.
Great article again Ritchie 👌👏
I concur.
By the way I like the answer from Patrick (FujiRumors) taking your article / response in perspective and making a balanced conclusion out of it.
Great interaction between you both. Congrats.
I like that too 👍
Thanks! It was definitely a surprise to see my face on Fujirumors 😮🤣
In my opinion, where exactly each brand ranks is not all that important, and more gee-whiz than anything else. Who really cares which brand is number one or number three or whatever? I only bring it up because it illustrates the good position Fujifilm is currently in, with strong sales that continue to grow, a trend that I hope extends into the future, but could certainly change from one year to the next.
The above is all you needed to say. Saying that and then writing another 1000 odd words to explain why Fujifilm numbers are important sounds like a proper insecure cultist that Fuji users are made out to be (myself included). I agree with those first five lines of yours wholeheartedly and I will go further to say that all that matters is that against all odds more cameras are sold this year than last. Who sells more and why is immaterial. On the other hand would you say that Ferrari sold more than Porsche if Ferrari start making pickup tracks and 15k mini city cars? You kinda have to find a bit of a like for like otherwise my local supermarket sells more apples than Canon sells cameras I doubt that is of any interest to anyone
It was about 700 words—not 1,000—if we’re counting.
My point, though, was not about the rankings, but about the accuracy and integrity of PetaPixel. DPReview, Digital Camera World, and PetaPixel are the big three for photo-specific journalism (and they’re neck-in-neck-in-neck), but PetaPixel can be argued as the only one that is primarily photography/camera journalism focused. If PetaPixel is being inaccurate in their reporting, that needs to be addressed. If they are purposefully misrepresenting the facts, how can they be trusted? I have quoted and linked to PetaPixel many times on this website, but how can I be assured that they were being truthful at those times? I personally have lost a bit of faith.
For example, in this particular PetaPixel article, the author currently owns (or has owned very recently) a Fujifilm X100VI. This is the most viral, most discussed camera of the last two and a half years, one that the author has intimate experience with, yet he forgets to mention it? Did he bang his head and have a concussion? It’s either that, or he purposefully left it out because it undermined the point of his article, in an effort to “trick” his audience. I don’t hope he had any injury of any sort, but the more gracious explanation is the former and not the latter. If it is purposeful dishonesty, that’s a major, major issue, and a problem for PetaPixel. That’s in addition to the X Half lie. If they’re willing to easily fib about something that doesn’t matter in the least, what about the important issues? Have they been dishonest this whole time?
I’m making a mountain out of a molehill in this comment, but I’m doing so to explain why it was important to me to write this article—not because of camera rankings (which very few people actually care about—I certainly don’t), but because of journalistic integrity (or the lack thereof in PetaPixel’s case), which is a much more pressing issue.
If PetaPixel is interested in restoring faith in their journalism, they need fully correct their article and issue an apology. Behind closed doors, they need to address why this happened and how to prevent it in the future. That’s my opinion, anyway.