Left to right: SeeStar, Dwarf2, and Vespera Click for a larger version. The Vespera is a lot heavier. Lots of metal in the constructio ... Shot Andromeda last night, chose a fov for the full 8mp and then just used iPad only processing which consist of, affinity iOS to stretch,fits scrubber for star removal, photomator for levels and Leon ... I just received my SeeStar S50... More on cloudynights.com

Unfortunately neither one is going to be good for planets. They are good for the moon, sun and deep sky objects (nebulae, galaxies) but they won’t have enough magnification to see any details on the planets. Of the two, the Seestar should give you slightly better views of the planets but it won’t be a meaningful difference. The Dwarf is more compact / portable and will give wider field views. I have used the Dwarf, but I ordered the Seestar. More on reddit.com

Go on astrobin.com then search for Dwarf II images and Seestar S50 images to see what results both of them get More on reddit.com

More recent sensor and chip advancements amount to better images, (at least in DSLR photography), and the dwarf 3 has a newer chip, (IMX678), than the Seestar's older, (IMX462), sensor. Having taught photography at a local university for the last 25 years through the digital revolution, the Dwarf 3's newer sensor is a large plus in my view. I found the following comparative information online very quickly and the itemized information delineating the differences between the newer IMX678 sensor in the Dwarf 3, and the older IMX462 sensor in the Seestar. (Note that not all of the quoted information applies to astrophotography, i.e., megapixel valuations). The more current sensor alone pushes me heavily towards the Dwarf 3 camp but perhaps I put too much weight in my purchasing rubric on the most recent sensor technology and advancements. This valuation methodology and rubric has worked well for me as a teacher without fail in helping students decide on which DSLR camera is likely the current top dog, (for their respective budgets), and I am willing to bet that the more recent sensor technology is a large benefit as well in the realm of astrophotography. To compare the IMX678 and IMX462 image sensors, consider the following points: Resolution: IMX678 offers a higher resolution (up to 50 MP) compared to IMX462 (12 MP). Pixel Size: IMX678 features larger pixels for better low-light performance than IMX462. Dynamic Range: IMX678 has improved dynamic range capabilities, enhancing image quality in varied lighting. Video Capabilities: IMX678 supports higher frame rates and resolution for video recording than IMX462. Use Cases: IMX678 is ideal for high-end smartphones and cameras, while IMX462 suits mid-range devices. Technology: IMX678 utilizes advanced technologies like Quad Bayer for better color accuracy compared to IMX462. (November 20, 2025) More on reddit.com