The DwarfLab DWARF II is discontinued and sold out at the manufacturer: if you are buying new, there is no choice left to make — it is the DwarfLab DWARF 3 at €549. The real question lies elsewhere: should you replace a DWARF II you already own, and below what price does a second-hand unit still make sense? Below roughly €150, yes; above €200, no.
The verdict in 20 seconds
The DWARF 3 is not a facelifted DWARF II, it is a generation above on three counts: the optics go from 24 mm f/4.2 to 35 mm f/4.3, the sensor from the Sony IMX415 (Starvis) to the Sony IMX678 (Starvis 2), and claimed battery life from 3 h to 5.5 h. On top of that comes a third internal filter, a dual-band Hα/OIII, which the DWARF II does not have — it carries only two.
If you mostly shoot emission nebulae under light-polluted skies, moving up to the 3 is beyond argument: the dual-band filter and the Starvis 2 sensor change the nature of the result, not just its sharpness. For daytime or panoramic use, the gap is far less clear-cut.
For a new purchase, the DWARF 3 is the only model still available. The DWARF II is only worth discussing second-hand, and its sole argument is price: it never had a euro list price, its launch price was $300, and you need to find it well below that for it to make sense against a new DWARF 3 at €549.
The numbers side by side
| Criterion | DWARF II | DWARF 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Discontinued, sold out at DwarfLab | Available |
| Indicative price | Never published in euros | €549 |
| Launch price (USD) | $300 | $549 |
| Release year | Early 2023 (Kickstarter 2021-2022) | 2025 |
| Optical type | Dual lens optics: tele + wide-angle | Dual lens: tele + wide-angle |
| Aperture | 24 mm (tele); wide-angle never published in mm | 35 mm |
| Focal length | 100 mm (tele, 675 mm full-frame equiv.); wide-angle 48 mm equiv., true focal length not published | 150 mm (737 mm equiv.) |
| Focal ratio | f/4.2 (tele); f/2.4 (wide-angle) | f/4.3 |
| Sensor | Sony IMX415 Starvis 1/2.8″ (tele) | Sony IMX678 (Starvis 2) |
| Resolution | 8 MP (tele); 2 MP (wide-angle) | 8.3 MP |
| Field of view | 3° (tele); 50° (wide-angle) | 2.93° × 1.65° |
| Mosaic | Yes, panorama from 9 to 1800 frames; resulting field never published in degrees | Yes, 2×2 panorama |
| Mount | Motorised GoTo altazimuth | Motorised alt-azimuth |
| Equatorial mode | Yes | Yes, exposures up to 60 s; EQ tripod not supplied |
| Claimed battery life | 3 h | 5.5 h |
| Storage | 64 GB microSD supplied, up to 512 GB | 128 GB (eMMC) |
| Weight | 1.0 to 1.5 kg depending on source (body only); around 2 kg fully configured | 1.3 kg |
| Tripod | Supplied | Not supplied |
| Built-in filters | Two switchable internal filters: VIS and Astro | Three switchable filters: VIS, Astro, dual-band Hα/OIII, plus a solar filter supplied |
| Connectivity | Wi-Fi 2.4 and 5 GHz, Bluetooth, USB-C | Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.0, NFC, USB-C, IP54 |
| Subscription | No, DWARFLAB app is free | No, all features included |
Where these numbers come from
Not all of the DWARF II figures are manufacturer data. DwarfLab has removed its spec sheet. The features listed here — equatorial mode, internal filters, panorama, battery life, connectivity, launch price in dollars — remain manufacturer-sourced, but every optical and physical value in the DWARF II column comes from third-party sources. Better to say so than to line up two columns that do not carry the same weight. The DWARF 3 figures, by contrast, are published by DwarfLab.
Two consequences. Weight: 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5 kg depending on the source for the body alone, around 2 kg fully configured. We publish the range, never a single value — so a gram-by-gram comparison with the DWARF 3’s 1.3 kg is impossible. Wide-angle aperture: never published in millimetres. Some dealer listings show “24 mm f/2.4”; that is a faulty copy of the telephoto aperture. We publish only the f/2.4 ratio.
What really separates them
35 mm versus 24 mm: the one real optical jump
The DWARF 3 opens at 35 mm, the DWARF II at 24 mm, at an almost identical ratio (f/4.3 against f/4.2): it is the collecting area that grows, not the speed. Focal length follows, 150 mm against 100 mm, i.e. a full-frame equivalent of 737 against 675 mm. A slightly tighter field, but more light.
IMX415 versus IMX678: Starvis against Starvis 2
Resolution barely moves, 8 MP against 8.3 MP. The change is elsewhere: the move from Starvis to Starvis 2, which comparisons that only count pixels miss entirely. Since no comparable mosaic field is published for both devices, we will not attempt the exercise.
The third filter, the one that changes your evenings
The DWARF II carries two internal filters switchable from the app, VIS and Astro. The DWARF 3 adds a third, a dual-band Hα/OIII, and ships with a solar filter. Under urban skies, on an emission nebula, that is the difference between a salvaged image and a washed-out one: in our view the first reason to upgrade, ahead of the optics.
The tripod: beware the false bargain
The DWARF II ships with a tripod; the DWARF 3 does not. The real price gap is therefore wider than it looks — and the DWARF 3’s equatorial mode calls for an EQ tripod, also not supplied.
Battery life and ruggedness
3 h claimed against 5.5 h: the difference between a mandatory power bank and a session run in one go. The DWARF 3 adds an IP54 rating and NFC; no ingress protection rating was ever published for the DWARF II — missing data, not missing protection.
The “DWARF II Solar Elite” is not a model
A very common confusion in second-hand listings: the DWARF II Solar Elite is not a separate product. It is an Explore Scientific dealer bundle, a standard DWARF II accompanied by two solar filters. Optics, sensor, electronics and app are those of the DWARF II. Paying a “Solar Elite” premium believing you are buying a higher-grade device means paying for two filters.
Which one to choose for your use
You own a DWARF II and wonder about the 3
Move up to the 3 if you target emission nebulae, go out under light-polluted skies, or if the 3 h battery has already cut a session short. Stay on the DWARF II if your use is daytime or panoramic: the wide-angle and the 9-to-1800-frame panorama still do the job.
You are looking at a second-hand DWARF II
The threshold we use: below about €150, shipping included, the DWARF II is still defensible — half its $300 launch price, for a complete device, tripod included, with an app still maintained. Between €150 and €200 it is arguable, depending on condition and accessories. Above €200, no: too close to €549 for a new DWARF 3, under warranty, brighter and better filtered, to accept a discontinued device whose maker no longer even publishes a spec sheet.
You are starting out and buying new
The DWARF 3, the only one of the two still available. Budget for the tripod, which is not supplied.
Frequently asked questions
Is the DWARF II Solar Elite better than the DWARF II?
No, it is the same device: an Explore Scientific pack that adds two solar filters to a standard DWARF II. No optical, electronic or software difference.
Why do your DWARF II figures differ from other sites?
Because DwarfLab pulled the spec sheet: everyone copies third-party sources and the errors propagate. The “24 mm f/2.4” attributed to the wide-angle is the textbook case, that aperture never having been published in millimetres.
Is the DWARF 3 twice as capable?
No manufacturer data allows a performance ratio to be quantified, and we will not invent one. What is established: 35 mm against 24 mm, Starvis 2 against Starvis, 5.5 h against 3 h, one extra dual-band filter.
What if neither suits me?
Within DwarfLab, the DWARF mini aims lower and more compact. Elsewhere, the ZWO Seestar S30 is the most direct alternative in this price bracket.