Telescope Reviews: New Edition of Uranometria 2000

A detailed and thoughtful response, Don - though I think some of our differences are simply preferences on how to use atlases for observing.

I will however suggest that "if you make the faintest stars larger, the brightest ones get larger too..." isn't right - it depends on how you scale the dots relative to magnitude. It's possible to use different scaling procedures so the faintest stars are not so small on the page. For me, the reduced number of stars overall, and the smallest dots for faint stars, creates a very large reduction in the number of faint stars. My eyesight is good, but with a dim red light I can't easily see the fainter stars even with reading glasses on. That's not the case with the 1st edition. That's me, but I suspect that experience is not unique.

You're obviously keener on faint galaxies than I am. We make our choices... Which is probably why I currently have a C9.25 instead of a large Dob; and in the past had a 10" Newtonian, not a 16" or 20". I can see plenty of galaxies at those apertures, but I don't feel a need to chase thousands more through 15th magnitude or whatever the rough limit of Uranometria 2 is. I know personally some highly skilled observers who do. Whatever floats your boat.

So that's a preference, not a rule for everyone. I observe moon, planets, star clusters, doubles, planetary nebulae - and the brighter emission nebulae, a few reflection and dark ones, and the brighter galaxies (say to 12th magnitude or so). The fainter galaxies don't do much for me. I know for some other folk they're a major interest.

My comments about the MSA are based on accepting it's not a good choice for deep sky observers. Hence my suggestion on a version of it with a lot more deep sky objects - perhaps as many as Uranometria...

I'd certainly buy that if the price was half reasonable, and if it was not in one huge volume.

Again, printed charts versus computer atlases - I like printed charts better when observing. Some other observers I've spent time with prefer computer atlases. I find I use printed charts under the stars, and computer atlases in the study. That's merely a preference.

Regarding the Tri-Atlas, I fairly often print off a section of a 'C' chart on an A4 sheet, a manageable size of paper, and it gives a good scale as I can choose the scale (200% or 300% or 400%)to match the sky area density etc. In some ways the 'C' charts are near ideal for me - they go deep enough on stars, have a good showing of deep sky objects, and my only serious quibble would be dot-size scaling where I think the dot sizes can be a little large with mid-magnitude stars in crowded areas. But I don't find it a killer. Overall, this is my preferred atlas for doubles, clusters and general deep sky when I want an atlas that goes reasonably deep. For a mid-level atlas under the stars I still use Uranometria 1st edition some of the time. Like many observers I use a number of atlases, according to what seems a "best fit" for what I'm doing.

Your list of advantages of computer atlases is a good summary and has nothing I'd disagree with in terms of scale choices, update ability, having data available, etc. Which I guess is why I use the Tri-Atlas 'C' charts - but print them off for field use. I like paper better than screens when under the stars, but that's me. I've also had Megastar for some years, but again found I mostly used it in the study.

Conclusion? We all make our choices according to what works for us. Rather like deciding what telescope to get, or what types of objects appeal most to us for observing. These days we have more atlases, aids, and equipment on offer than in the past, which is great.