telescopecomparison · 2-way
Celestron RASA 6 vs Unistellar Equinox 2
Unistellar
Equinox 2
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a backyard imaging setup.
Key differences
-26% focal length
+33% aperture
Faster by 1.7 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | Celestron RASA 6 | Unistellar Equinox 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | astrograph | smart-telescope |
| Optical design | Rowe-Ackermann Schmidt Astrograph | Newtonian all-in-one |
| Aperture | 152mm | 114mm |
| Focal length | 335mm | 450mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/2.2 | f/3.9 |
| Image circle | 16mm | — |
| Full-frame support | No | No |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 3.8kg | 9.0kg |
Advantages of Celestron RASA 6
- Wider field — 335mm vs 450mm focal length
- 33% more light-gathering aperture
- Faster optics at f/2.2 vs f/3.9
- Larger image circle (16mm) — supports bigger sensors
- Lighter (3.8kg vs 9kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of Unistellar Equinox 2
- Tighter framing — 450mm vs 335mm focal length
Best for — Celestron RASA 6
- Wide-field nebulae and Milky Way regions
- Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
Best for — Unistellar Equinox 2
- Large emission nebulae and star clusters
- Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
Celestron RASA 6 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 6.16° × 4.11°Scale: 2.32"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 4.02° × 2.69°Scale: 2.32"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.93° × 1.93°Scale: 2.32"/px
Unistellar Equinox 2 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 4.58° × 3.06°Scale: 1.72"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.99° × 2.00°Scale: 1.72"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 1.44° × 1.44°Scale: 1.72"/px
Celestron RASA 6 — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
Unistellar Equinox 2 — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a backyard imaging setup.
