telescopecomparison · 2-way
William Optics MiniCat 51 WIFD vs ZWO Seestar S50
William Optics
MiniCat 51 WIFD
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
Key differences
-29% focal length
Faster by 1.5 f-stops
Specifications
| Specification | William Optics MiniCat 51 WIFD | ZWO Seestar S50 |
|---|---|---|
| Optics | ||
| Type | refractor | smart-telescope |
| Optical design | Petzval (6-element) | Apo triplet all-in-one |
| Aperture | 51mm | 50mm |
| Focal length | 178mm | 250mm |
| Native f/ratio | f/3.5 | f/5.0 |
| Image circle | 43mm | — |
| Full-frame support | Yes | No |
| Physical | ||
| Weight | 1.7kg | 2.5kg |
Advantages of William Optics MiniCat 51 WIFD
- Wider field — 178mm vs 250mm focal length
- Faster optics at f/3.5 vs f/5
- Larger image circle (43.2mm) — supports bigger sensors
- Lighter (1.67kg vs 2.5kg) — easier to travel with
Advantages of ZWO Seestar S50
- Tighter framing — 250mm vs 178mm focal length
Best for — William Optics MiniCat 51 WIFD
- Wide-field nebulae and Milky Way regions
- Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
- Full-frame astro cameras and DSLRs
Best for — ZWO Seestar S50
- Wide-field nebulae and Milky Way regions
- Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
William Optics MiniCat 51 WIFD — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 11.59° × 7.73°Scale: 4.36"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 7.56° × 5.05°Scale: 4.36"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 3.64° × 3.64°Scale: 4.36"/px
ZWO Seestar S50 — typical FOV & scale
- With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 8.25° × 5.50°Scale: 3.10"/px
- With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 5.39° × 3.60°Scale: 3.10"/px
- With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)FOV: 2.59° × 2.59°Scale: 3.10"/px
William Optics MiniCat 51 WIFD — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
ZWO Seestar S50 — recommended user
Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.
