Seestar S50 Vs Dwarf2 Smart Telescopes Comparison by a Novice Astrophotographer

I made this comparison solely as an inexperienced user who is encountering astrophotography for the first time, and probably most buyers are at my level of knowledge in this field.

This time I will try to compare these two wonderful smart telescopes by a beginner in astrophotography. By the way, I am not a beginner in astronomy at all, I own several telescopes, the largest of which is a Dobsonian type with an 11-inch mirror, as well as several binoculars, and I have many hours of experience in direct observation of distant objects in the sky. In the past, I tried several times in the field of astrophotography, but it was only partially successful. A turning point was the purchase of my first smart telescope Seestar S50 in May of this year.

About a month ago, I was lucky enough to get a Dwarf2 smart telescope at an unrealistically low price, and after some time of using both telescopes together, I think I can present you a real comparison of these two smart telescopes, because I got them with my own funds without any sponsorships from side of the manufacturers.

Let me tell you right away that this is my personal opinion and it does not necessarily mean that it is completely correct, but it is certain that this review is not influenced by either of these two companies. Let's start with the Seestar S50. I saw the telescope on the internet since January, but my modest income did not allow me to buy it right away. So I had a lot of time to watch YouTube reviews. During that period, I saw that the Dwarf 2 smart telescope, which was the same price as the Seestar, was also very popular, so it was logical to decide which of them was better in order to get it. I honestly looked at countless comparison videos and reviews and almost all of them were pretty much the same. In Dwarf2, preference was given to certain features, and in Seestar to others, and so they are in a circle. Always in the end the conclusion was that both are equally good.

After some time I noticed that all the comparison reviews, almost without exception, are sponsored by both manufacturers in the form of a free test sample and affiliate links. Then it was clear to me that it was not about real thoughts and reviews at all. On certain independent astrophoto forums, it could be felt that the Seestar S50 has significantly better performance, so I decided to buy it. And let me tell you right away that I wasn't wrong at all, and I'm telling you this especially after I got the competing Dwarf2.

Before I start with a short analysis and comparison, let me point out a few facts that definitely support my final conclusion. As I mentioned earlier, until some time before the appearance of Dwarf3, which is actually a significantly improved version of Dwarf2, all mutually sponsored reviews without exception were of the opinion that the Seestar s50 and Dwarf 2 telescopes were broadly equal in characteristics. After the appearance of Dwarf3, now the same YouTube channels are comparing Seestar s50 and now Dwarf 3 and again both have almost "equal" characteristics, forgetting that they claimed that when comparing Dwarf 2, which is actually a much weaker version of the new Dwarf3.

First I analyze the physical characteristics, of course the seestar s 50 is bigger and heavier than the Dwarf2, but it is therefore much more stable when taking pictures, taking into account the excellent massive tripod. Dwarf 2 according to the nut is intended for higher mounting on a photographic tripod, but in my personal experience in such a case it is quite unstable and sways even in relatively light to moderate wind, and its original tripod does not instill any stability.

Next, the optics is the most important part of any telescope, and the size of the lens that receives the weak light (in our case, the objective) is seen as the main characteristic. In dwarf 2 it has a diameter of 24mm, while in Seestar s50 it is 50mm.

This is more than triple the light absorbed in the same unit of time. Someone will say, well, I'll leave the smaller lens active for more time to receive the same light, but forgets that the received light generated by the surrounding objects (light pollution) increases by the same amount, so the black-white ratio as well as sharpness will be less favorable.

Then a few words about the resolution of the sensor where I think the mistake is most often made. Namely, the resolution of the Seestar s50 is "only" 2 megapixels, and the Dwarf 2 even 8. This does not mean that the Dwarf 2 will take pictures with four times the resolution. In fact dwarf 2 has this resolution over a much larger area, so if we compare images of the same size from both telescopes, the resolution of dwarf 2 is only marginally higher and it is not noticeable at all.

Now about the Go-To option and tracking the requested object. I think the Seestar s50 is the absolute winner in this field, and my personal opinion is that it is because of the size and robustness of the motors and gears. Better executed mechanics in short. I should also mention that the Seestar's battery lasts 50 percent longer than the Dwarf2's.

As for the smartphone connection, at least for me, it is flawless with the seestar, while with the dwarf it happens to be lost even when the smartphone is right next to the telescope. Another very important segment is software.

It can be said that I'm not a beginner in that part, but still with Dwarf the application is a bit confusing, there are more unnecessary settings (for begginer) and most importantly the objects in the software are not shown with a real image, but only as an icon. According to the experience of several of my friends, this is a huge minus of a dwarf. In contrast, Seestar's smartphone application is more than excellent. Sometimes it happens that some errors are made with a certain version of the firmware, but it is fixed very quickly with a new version. I think that with both companies, a big drawback is the inability to downgrade the firmware. .

And now the most important part, my subjective experience working with both telescopes. Namely, every time I go out to observe the night sky, I place the two telescopes next to each other. Very often I direct them to the same object. Fortunately, I have had many clear nights in the last month and have been observing often. To tell you the truth, my humble opinion as a hobbyist astrophotographer, is that these two "toys" don't even belong in the same class. The photos taken with the Seestar s50 are much clearer, with more details and with a drastically lower impact of light pollution, which is very important considering that these devices are mainly intended for use in populated areas. On the other hand, the images taken with Dwarf 2 are far paler, very often the stars are slightly stretched due to imprecise tracking, and less bright, more distant objects (for example, galaxies) that are visible with a seestar and without a filter, with Dwarf 2 are barely visible with a light pollution filter.

In the following, I want to present you some RAW (not post-processed) photos of the same objects taken on both telescopes:

However, during the comparison I was a bit more critical of dwarf2, actually more of the creators of the previous reviews, than of the telescope itself. I love the Dwarf2 as much as the seestar s50 because both smart telescopes open a new era in the field of astrophotography. Well, it's fair to say that Dwarf 2 has certain advantages over Seestar, but the overall assessment is that Seestar s50 is better.

And finally a short conclusion. I made this comparison solely as an inexperienced user who is encountering astrophotography for the first time, and probably most buyers are at my level of knowledge in this field. I will be glad if you give your comment, but I prefer as the owner of both telescopes so that the comment is the result of the experience of using them. According to my personal experience (which by the way is not necessarily true), for me the absolute winner is the Seestar S50 .