Skip to main content

Digital Cameras

In this guide we investigate the ethical and environmental record of 13 digital camera brands. 

We look at how camera companies fall behind on workers' rights, tax conduct and climate emissions.

Several digital camera manufacturers also make binoculars and other sports optics. Some brands have more extensive links to the hunting industry and the military. We look at the links and which brands are involved. 

About our guides

This is a shopping guide from Ethical Consumer, the UK's leading alternative consumer organisation. Since 1989 we've been researching and recording the social and environmental records of companies, and making the results available to you in a simple format.

Learn more about our shopping guides   →

Score table

Updated daily from our research database. Read the FAQs to learn more.

← Swipe left / right to view table contents →
Brand Name of the company Score (out of 100) Ratings Categories Explore related ratings in detail

Pentax digital cameras

Company Profile: Ricoh Imaging Company
30

Ricoh digital cameras

Company Profile: Ricoh Co. Ltd.
30

Sony digital cameras

Company Profile: Sony Group Corporation
25

Nikon digital cameras

Company Profile: Nikon Corporation
23

Fujifilm digital cameras

Company Profile: FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
20

Instax digital camera

Company Profile: FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation
20

Leica digital cameras

Company Profile: Leica Camera Ltd
20

Canon digital cameras

Company Profile: Canon Inc
15

LUMIX digital cameras

Company Profile: Panasonic Corporation
13

Panasonic digital cameras

Company Profile: Panasonic Corporation
13

OM System digital camera

Company Profile: OM Digital Solutions
10

Olympus digital cameras

Company Profile: OM Digital Solutions
10

Samsung digital cameras

Company Profile: Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
8

What to buy

What to look for when buying a digital camera:

  • Brands taking action to reduce their climate impact. Look for companies which are at least transparent about their impact.

  • Secondhand. If you do have to buy, the best way to avoid adding to your environmental and climate impact is to buy secondhand.

What not to buy

What to avoid when buying a digital camera:

  • Does the company support the hunting industry? Does your camera brand support hunting either through the sponsorship of hunting events or through marketing its own hunting equipment?

  • Likely tax avoiders. Avoid companies associated with likely tax avoidance practices through subsidiaries in tax havens. Corporate tax avoidance takes revenue away from governments and public services.

Best Buys

There were no brands that scored high enough across the board to be recommended as Best Buys.

Recommended buys

To avoid companies with links to hunting, we would recommend buying from:

Nikon, Ricoh and Pentax, which have relatively weak links to hunting and scored relatively highly across the board.

Olympus scores poorly in most areas but has no links to hunting or to arms and the military.

Canon has no links to hunting, but scored 0 for tax conduct.

Companies to avoid

Samsung has been the subject of criticisms over worker’s rights from multiple campaign groups, including accusations of blocking trade unions, poor pay and unsafe conditions by the International Trade Union Confederation.

Leica actively promotes trophy hunting through the manufacture and sale of equipment and through their marketing and sponsorship programmes.

  • Samsung
  • Leica

In-depth Analysis


How to find an ethical digital camera

Digital camera sales were in steep decline, with the market size having dropped from 2017 to 2023. But there is a resurgence driven by Gen Z social media users and "retro" trends, with 2024–2025 sales increasing for the first time in years. 

Many consumers are using their smartphone cameras rather than buying a standalone camera.

Mirrorless cameras are the most popular followed by compact cameras. Sales of DSLRs are declining.


Japanese dominance of the camera industry

As always, the camera industry is heavily dominated by Japan, with seven of the nine companies rated in this guide headquartered there.

Japanese dominance in the camera industry dates back to World War II, when the country’s military relied on optical apparatus and great advances were made in optical glass manufacturing.

After the war, Japan’s economy recovered quicker than Germany’s allowing Japanese camera companies to gain the upper hand over the German manufacturers which had dominated the camera market before the war.


Compact, mirrorless or DSLR?

Digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) are typically bulkier, which makes them more cumbersome but allows them to fit more batteries in and last longer. They were once the only choice for professional photographers, but mirrorless cameras now offer similar levels of quality.

Mirrorless cameras do not use the reflex mirror system found in DSLRs. Light passes directly through the lens onto the imaging sensor, which feeds a digital preview to a rear screen or Electronic Viewfinder (EVF). They are generally smaller, lighter, and faster, offering advanced autofocus and video features compared to traditional DSLRs.

Compact or ‘point-and-shoot’ cameras have typically been the most popular type for consumers; cheaper and small with an in-built lens. They directly compete with the camera phone.


Workers’ rights in the supply chain 

Workers’ rights violations are endemic in electronics supply chains, where intensive manufacturing in countries with little protection leads to exploitative practices.

Compared with some other mass-produced electronic devices such as smartphones, digital camera producers typically carry out more of the manufacturing and final assembly ‘in-house’ rather than outsourcing to other companies, although many companies do own manufacturing plants in countries known for cheap labour such as Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines.

Complex electronic devices require a myriad of materials and components and this necessitates a large supply chain.

The companies assessed in this guide were found to be behind the curve on workers' rights, with nearly half of the brands scoring 0/100 in this category - Sony, Leica, Lumix, Panasonic, Olympus and OM.

The highest scoring brands were the two owned by Ricoh - Pentax and Ricoh, but they only scored 40/100.


Tax avoidance by camera companies

Only 2 of the 9 companies scored above zero in this category - Leica, Olympus (including OM).

Leica was the highest scoring owning only one ordinary company based in a tax haven - Switzerland.

Olympus and OM (both owned by the same company) owned two ordinary companies in tax havens.

All the other companies owned companies in tax havens that were judged likely to be used for tax avoidance strategies.


Camera companies and climate emissions

We rated camera companies on what they were doing to tackle climate change - whether they were cutting emissions and reporting about them, whether they had targets for future cuts in emissions and whether they were involved with fossil fuels.

Four companies scored relatively well in the Climate category - Ricoh, Sony, Nikon and Fujifilm.

The worst scoring were Leica, Olympus/OM and Samsung. We couldn't find any information from Leica, Olympus and OM. Samsung was at least reporting its climate emissions but had been criticised as one of the biggest carbon polluters in big tech in 2023. 

Wildlife shooting

For a decade Ethical Consumer has been reviewing the strong links between optics manufacturers and the hunting market in our in-depth reports. Our latest report on shooting and the optics industry was published in December 2024, along with a new guide to binoculars and other sport optics.

Our 2024 'Beyond Specs' report found that Nikon, Ricoh and Pentax have relatively weak links to hunting.

Olympus and Canon had no links to hunting. But others like Leica scored poorly in the hunting rating.


Military links 

The Beyond Specs report also detailed links to arms and military.

It found that:

  • Olympus and Leica had no links to arms and the military and only lost out on full marks because they lacked an explicit policy on these matters.
  • Pentax and Ricoh supply IT and office equipment to the military.
  • Fujifilm supplies imaging equipment to the military.
  • Canon supplies office and medical optical products to the military.
  • Nikon was the only company to have any policy on arms which stated that it verified that its export goods wouldn’t be used for the development of weapons. However, it only scored 60/100 as it had contracts to supply the US Department of Defense with optical and other equipment.

NB: Sony, Panasonic and Samsung were not included in the Beyond Specs report, so the hunting and military links categories do not appear on the cameras scoretable for any of the companies, for consistency. You can view these categories for the other companies in the binoculars guide

Photography’s toxic footprint

People often assume that digital photography must have reduced the use of toxic chemicals, as you no longer have to develop a whole roll of film in a lot of nasty substances just to get a single pleasing shot of your cat.

However, there is good reason to believe that all that has happened is that the chemical burden has shifted from the darkroom into far darker, more hidden places – the distant places where electronics are created and destroyed.

As discussed in our guide to TVs and monitors, electronic devices typically contain a number of chemicals known to be toxic to humans and the environment.   

At the manufacturing end, many processes in electronics production involve harmful substances. Several chemicals have been linked to a range of cancers, although there is currently a lack of hard data and the World Health Organisation has called for further studies. At the other end of their lifecycle, electronics contain dozens of toxic substances, such as lead, mercury and cadmium, that can leach out after disposal. Millions of tonnes of ‘e-waste’ are still being dumped illegally in poor countries.

These chemicals are not only notorious carcinogens and endocrine disrupters, they are also eminently replaceable. 

Company profile

Samsung is said to be the eighth most valuable brand in the world. Headquartered in Samsung Town in South Korea’s capital, Seoul, the company has customers across the globe.

But what of the company’s ethics?

Our research identified a number of ethical issues with Samsung, from exposing workers to toxic chemicals to being involved in new fossil fuel development, and being considered high risk for the likely use of tax avoidance strategies.

Want to know more?

If you want to find out detailed information about a company and more about its ethical rating, then click on a brand name in the Score table.

This information is reserved for subscribers only. Don't miss out, become a subscriber today.