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

DwarfLab Draco against DwarfLab DWARF II, 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 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 4× faster.

Field of view. The DWARF II shows 3.19° × 1.79° 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 2.99″, 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 II tops out at 15 s. That matters little from a city, where skyglow sets the floor, and a lot from a dark site, where read noise does.

Filters. The Draco has a dual-band filter built in; the DWARF II does not, which costs it heavily on emission nebulae from any suburban sky.

Specifications side by side

Timed on the same targets

Suburban sky (Bortle 6)

Rural sky (Bortle 3)

Try the Draco in the calculator Try the DWARF II

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.

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.

Other comparisons

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