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

DwarfLab Draco 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 Draco is 1.2× 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 1.2× faster.

Field of view. The Draco shows 1.66° × 1.24° 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. Pixel scales are within 10% of each other, so neither has a real detail advantage.

Subs and dark skies. The Draco goes up to 300 s subs in Pro Mode, 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. The Draco has a dual-band filter built in; the eQuinox 2 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 eQuinox 2

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 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 · Draco page · eQuinox 2 page