Aperture in entry level compact P&S

[u0206397]

Was comparing 2 entry level sub-$200 compact cameras in a shop. Was advised by the salesman to pick at a newer model with f2.5 over an older model with f3.3 at a higher price. It is marketed as being better at taking night shots.

I do agree that aperture matters in camera in general, but in entry level P&S cameras where probably the sensor and lens quality are already compromised somewhat, does the slight difference in aperture (f2.5 vs. f3.3) between the 2 cameras actually improve image quality that is observable? Or just marketing ploy to persuade potential buyers using impressive technical specs and theoretical numbers, though most layman users would not notice much difference in pictures taken by both cameras under similar lighting conditions?

In short, any noticeable or perceivable difference in image quality that justifies paying more for the newer model based on bigger aperture?

 

[Rashkae]

Marketing ploy mostly. You won't see much of a difference, unless the newer camera also massively improved the sensor (see the Sony RX-100 for a good idea here).

If you're taking night landscape you'd use a smaller aperture anyway.

 

[pinholecam]

Probably half truth, half sales trick.

As usual with dealing with the sales ppl, you got to know what you want and what price the item you want is selling at, or risk being chopped.

At the least the f2.5 aperture is going to let you use a lower ISO (0.3-0.5 stops) over the f3.3 one.
Personally, I would not pay much more for the difference.

 

[Rashkae]

Probably half truth, half sales trick.

As usual with dealing with the sales ppl, you got to know what you want and what price the item you want is selling at, or risk being chopped.

At the least the f2.5 aperture is going to let you use a lower ISO (0.3-0.5 stops) over the f3.3 one.
Personally, I would not pay much more for the difference.

....and that's assuming the ISO performance of that sensor is not worse than the f/3.3 one...