DWARF II vs eQuinox 2: which is faster for deep-sky imaging?

DwarfLab DWARF II against Unistellar eQuinox 2, on the same targets from the same skies, using the same photon-budget model as the rest of the site. Times are for a solid image; the calculator gives quick-look and showpiece figures too.

Speed. Across the 30 most popular targets from a suburban Bortle 6 sky, the eQuinox 2 is 4× faster (geometric mean of the solid-image times, each scope on its recommended filter and default subs). From a rural Bortle 3 sky the eQuinox 2 is 3× faster.

Field of view. The DWARF II shows 3.19° × 1.79° against 0.76° × 0.57°, so big targets such as the Andromeda Galaxy, the North America Nebula and the Pleiades fit with room to spare where the eQuinox 2 needs a mosaic or a tight crop.

Detail. The eQuinox 2 samples at 1.33″ per pixel against 2.99″, so it pulls finer structure from small targets: planetary nebulae, globular cores, galaxy arms.

Subs and dark skies. The DWARF II goes up to 15 s subs, the eQuinox 2 tops out at 4 s. That matters little from a city, where skyglow sets the floor, and a lot from a dark site, where read noise does.

Filters. Neither has a built-in dual-band filter, so emission nebulae from a lit sky are slow going on both.

Specifications side by side

Timed on the same targets

Suburban sky (Bortle 6)

Rural sky (Bortle 3)

Try the DWARF II in the calculator Try the eQuinox 2

About the DwarfLab DWARF II

The original pocket scope. 24 mm aperture and tiny 1.45 µm pixels mean it is slow per pixel, so bin or downsample and be patient.

About the Unistellar eQuinox 2

A 114 mm Newtonian with five times the light grasp of a 50 mm refractor. Fixed 4 s subs put it in read-noise territory under dark skies, but the aperture carries it. The published field is 45.6′ × 34.2′, a crop of the sensor.

Other comparisons

All comparisons · Buying guide · DWARF II page · eQuinox 2 page