DWARF 3 vs Draco: which is faster for deep-sky imaging?

DwarfLab DWARF 3 against DwarfLab Draco, 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 Draco is 1.5× faster (geometric mean of the solid-image times, each scope on its recommended filter and default subs). From a rural Bortle 3 sky the Draco is 1.3× faster.

Field of view. The DWARF 3 shows 2.93° × 1.65° against 1.66° × 1.24°, so big targets such as the Andromeda Galaxy, the North America Nebula and the Pleiades fit with room to spare where the Draco needs a mosaic or a tight crop.

Detail. The Draco samples at 1.46″ per pixel against 2.75″, so it pulls finer structure from small targets: planetary nebulae, globular cores, galaxy arms.

Subs and dark skies. The Draco goes up to 300 s subs in Pro Mode, the DWARF 3 tops out at 60 s. That matters little from a city, where skyglow sets the floor, and a lot from a dark site, where read noise does.

Filters. Both carry a dual-band filter, which is what makes emission nebulae practical from a lit sky.

Specifications side by side

Timed on the same targets

Suburban sky (Bortle 6)

Rural sky (Bortle 3)

Try the DWARF 3 in the calculator Try the Draco

About the DwarfLab DWARF 3

Small pixels on a 35 mm f/4.3 lens give a sharper image than its aperture suggests, and EQ mode with 60 s subs makes it the read-noise winner in dark skies.

About the DwarfLab Draco

DwarfLab’s big scope: 90 mm of folded f/3.8 optics, the most aperture of any Seestar or DWARF, a narrow 13 nm dual-band filter and 300 s subs with built-in guiding. A small-target scope; big nebulae need its mosaic mode.

Other comparisons

All comparisons · Buying guide · DWARF 3 page · Draco page