I have been using an Unistellar Equinox for EAA for almost three years and recently acquired a Seestar, hoping the two scopes would complement each other. For my third trip to Chile I decided to take the Seestar, primarily because it is a much more manageable travel scope. I really didn't know what to expect because before leaving I had the opportunity to use it only once, under extremely light polluted skies.
My take on EAA is that it is a visual experience. I observe the object in real time for as long as I can discern increasing development. After observing I process the images in order to tease out further detail, guided by the work of astrophotographers either printed or posted on the web.
Because the target list for the third trip was formulated with the Equinox in mind there is no overlap with the lists from the previous two trips. As a result all of the images from the Seestar are from ideal skies while any images of the same objects from the Equinox are from skies that vary but usually were significantly less than ideal.
Nonetheless, I have some conclusions. The Seestar is better at nebulae, perhaps because the built in filter does its job. The Seestar is also better with open clusters, largely because stars become quickly bloated with the Equinox. With galaxies I am not so sure. I suspect the larger aperture of the Equinox would give it an advantage in a head to head contest, but I was not dissatisfied with the results produced by the Seestar in the ideal conditions.
Yet there is one serious disadvantage with the Seestar. In the absence of wind the Equinox rarely misses a frame when stacking whereas the Seestar is plagued with missed frames. This is no doubt frustrating for astrophotographers, but for EAA it is almost a fatal flaw. Minutes can go by with little or no development.
