The expertise and reputation of the editor(s) is of prime importance, with the publisher's reputation being a distant second, at best. I answer from an applied materials science perspective, which should be close enough to applied physics; although I don't see the situation changing much across fields. One exception would be if the field is highly specialised and only a few publishers operate in it.
At the outset, l believe there is no major difference in evaluating a journal and evaluating a book. In both cases, one looks for unflinching ethical conduct, respectability and high visibility. The first is non-negotiable; any hint of predatory publishers should deter submissions immediately, whether journal or book. The presence of a reputed and respected editor is a good indicator that the publication will be handled ethically.
Second, the matter of respectability. It is not much of an extrapolation from respectable editor to respectable book. Remember, any full citation of work published in a book will carry the editor's name, so the association is long-term. Often, such books are parts of series, or are associated with legacy conferences. In these cases, the repute of the series/conference can take precedence over the individual editor's, because different books are edited by different people. In these cases, the priority would be series, editors, publisher.
Finally, visibility. For journals you have an impact factor and other merits. For book chapters, there is none such. Here a well-known publisher is good because they will typically have better distribution than a smaller publisher. You mentioned Wiley and Springer, I'd like to add Elsevier, who somehow seem to be flooding the market. Yet, books tend to generally be thematic, so a well-known editor guarantees enough publicity within the respective field. Incidental/interdisciplinary readership may be affected less by editor and more by publisher.
On the basis of these three points, it's safe to say that a big publisher is desirable, it is not decisive. Why not? Primarily because publishing is ultimately a business, and like all big businesses, all eggs aren't put in the same basket. Every big publisher will have a spectrum of publications, varying in impact, quality and degree of specialisation. You can easily see this in the publishers you mentioned. So the same publisher could put out an average book or a great book, and you'd be none the wiser without looking at the editor.
Secondly, if a book is associated with a conference/seminar series, the publisher is decided by how much financial muscle the organisers have. It's a no-brainer that better finances don't necessarily mean better quality. Again, the visibility to a general audience will be higher for a larger publisher, but in the long term, once the chapters notch up enough citations, this is likely to be offset.