|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
there's a lead on both volumes of the Uranometria atlases for $45. they're from 1993 tho...so I'm wondering if they're actually worth purchasing, being I think they've had reprints. I just don't know if those reprints had many updates or error corrections that I should be concerned with or whether or not the current field guide would work with it.
do any of you know? 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
deepsky
sage
Reged: 12/04/05
Posts: 210
Loc: oregon
|
|
Quote:
there's a lead on both volumes of the Uranometria atlases for $45. they're from 1993 tho...so I'm wondering if they're actually worth purchasing, being I think they've had reprints. I just don't know if those reprints had many updates or error corrections that I should be concerned with or whether or not the current field guide would work with it.
do any of you know?
Uranometria 2000.0: " many changes and improvements have been made, not only in visual presentation, but in the underlying data from which it was created"
The Introduction goes on for 6 pages listed specific improvements in star positioning, magnitudes, galaxies and their orientation and positioning, star cluster improvements etc.
--------------------
jim jackson
Astroleague Observer Award junkie
Messier Club-Honorary
Lunar Club
Binocular Messier Club
Double Star Club
Herschel 400 Club
Urban Observing Club
Deep Sky Binocular Club
Caldwell Club Silver&Gold
Southern Sky Binocular Club
Southern Sky Telescopic Club
|
camvan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/02/05
Posts: 2086
Loc: British Columbia
|
|
so in other words, Jim, it's better to buy the latest and greatest. 
--------------------
Cameron
"Aperture can only be replaced by even more aperture. Dark transparent skies cannot be replaced by anything else." - Stathis Kafalis
|
John Flannery
sage
Reged: 12/03/04
Posts: 303
Loc: Dublin, Ireland
|
|
Hi Cameron,
Yes, the newer volumes have a number of improvements that Jim mentioned.
It's just a real shame that they discarded George Lovi's essay on the history of celestial cartography which appeared in volume 1 of the earlier edition of the atlas.
All the best,
John
--------------------
Oscail do Shuile D'iontas na Cruinne/Open Your Eyes to the Wonder of the Universe
Bliann Idirnáisiúnta Réalteolaíochta 2009/International Year of Astronomy 2009
|
Tony Flanders
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 2098
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
there's a lead on both volumes of the Uranometria atlases for $45. they're from 1993 tho...so I'm wondering if they're actually worth purchasing
The second edition is really a completely different atlas. The star database is much more reliable, and it has far more deep-sky objects -- arguably too many.
All in all, I'd say the second edition is quite clearly superior. But the first edition is excellent too. I own it, and I've never been seriously tempted to replace it with the second.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
eyeglasses
6x15 and 8x32 monoculars
8x25, 7x35, 10x30 IS, 10x50, and 15x70 binoculars
70mm and 100mm achromatic refractors
4.5", 7", and 12.5" Dobs
|
bicparker
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1438
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
I have both editions and I still keep the old one because of all the notes and annotations (although it has been well worn in the field!). It is still quite useful, however there are several minor errata throughout (some of which are reconciled in the vol. 3 deep sky field guide). Some of my markings are corrections to those errors, also.
The 2nd edition was a major redesign to make it more "field worthy". It rectified a lot of those previously mentioned errors plus it changed the map layout to follow the sky in a manner so the page edges join for each series of declination. There are also more finder maps and a section of wide field maps. So it basically "works" better in the field.
However, my 1st edition Uranometria worked well for several years and if I couldn't use the 2nd edition set, I wouldn't hesitate to bring out the 1st edition (and have on a couple of occasions).
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
Rick Woods
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 4301
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
There are a lot more stars in the first edition. I use the second primarily for the extra DSOs; but for general observing I use the first edition more. The second is definitely laid out better, with the double-page star charts. I like the binned stars of the first edition better, though - the continuously gradiated stars in the second result in tiny fly-speck stars, hard for me to see in the dark.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
8" Meade 826C
|
cildarith
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/26/04
Posts: 2122
Loc: San Diego, CA
|
|
I own both editions, but the first is the one that actually gets used at the telescope... The second edition suffers from fewer stars and (as has been mentioned) too many DSOs for the scale of the atlas.
--------------------
Eric
6" f/6 Parks Newtonian
10x50 Bushnell Binocs
CN Sketch Gallery
|
Rick Woods
Post Laureate
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 4301
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
I have both editions and I still keep the old one because of all the notes and annotations (although it has been well worn in the field!). It is still quite useful, however there are several minor errata throughout (some of which are reconciled in the vol. 3 deep sky field guide). Some of my markings are corrections to those errors, also.
Well, there's no real reason to let it go, anyway. There's that beautiful inside cover art and great intro by George Lovi; and anyway, you just can't have too many star atlases!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
8" Meade 826C
|
mikiek
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/10/07
Posts: 925
Loc: SE Texas
|
|
Sorry for digging up old wood but I have been considering adding these books to my library.
I currently use Sky Atlas 2000 and Night Sky Observers Guide as my primary sources. They have served me well but I would like to get something with more stars on the chart. SA2K goes to mag 8.5 and I believe Uranometria goes to mag 9.7 . I was just wondering if there was enough of a difference to justify the cost.
My ultimate purchase would be Millenium Sky Atlas but those are pretty tough to come by.
--------------------
___________________________________________________________
May there always be starlight on the path - R.Burnham
___________________________________________________________
Celestron CPC 1100
Radian 3mm, 5mm, 8mm, 12mm
Panoptic 22mm, 27mm, 35mm(the brick), 41mm (the cinder block)
Nagler 3-6 zoom, T4 17mm
Ethos 13mm
Everbrite Diagonal 2", Powermate 2X
FeatherTouch Crayford, Microfocuser
Telrad Finder, SV 9x50 RACI
Kendrick Dew System
TV NP-101(riding the CPC)
|
turtle86
sage
Reged: 10/09/06
Posts: 300
Loc: Between Umatilla and Astatula
|
|
Quote:
Sorry for digging up old wood but I have been considering adding these books to my library.
I currently use Sky Atlas 2000 and Night Sky Observers Guide as my primary sources. They have served me well but I would like to get something with more stars on the chart. SA2K goes to mag 8.5 and I believe Uranometria goes to mag 9.7 . I was just wondering if there was enough of a difference to justify the cost.
My ultimate purchase would be Millenium Sky Atlas but those are pretty tough to come by.
Uranometria shows a lot more deep-sky objects than Sky Atlas 2000. Most people prefer the second edition to the first edition, but the latter is still very useful and used copies aren't that expensive. Also, plenty of people in the northern hemisphere get by pretty well with just volume 1. In fact, when I go observing, I usually take just volume 1 and the Pocket Atlas.
--------------------
Rob
18" Starmaster
8" LX200
Too many Naglers
Off-topic distractions:
Red Sox, modern lit, golf, tennis, Pearl Jam, Monty Python, fine beer and cheap wine
|
bicparker
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1438
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
I have both the MSA and SA2K.
I prefer the Uranometria (2nd edition) overall to the other 2 atlases. SA2K is good, but if you when you are going for the fainter stuff, those additional field stars, plus the additional marked DSO's in U2K make a difference. Additionally, U2K 2nd Ed has several excellent detailed charts in its appendix for certain dense areas of observing.
As a comparison between the two, here is a case in point that I had at TSP: We were looking for a galaxy in this area of the sky where there were several galaxies and nebulae. We were originally starting with the SA2K, but as we were moving through the field (using both a 17.5" and a 36"), we noted several DSO's that weren't marked in the SA2K, but were in the U2K, so we switched to the U2K as the reference for that area. This resolved a lot of potential confusion when confirming this object.
As for the MSA, well, red ink should be banned in star atlases... I like the MSA as a home atlas reference, but I have not really warmed up to it as a field reference. I don't have anything major against it and, in fact, it does show significantly deeper details in terms of stars, extended objects boundaries and structures, and more highly magnified general fields of observing. However, it is not great as a standalone atlas in the field, primarily because of its chart keys (this is all just my own opinion and has to do to with how I use chart in the field, of course). The chart keys are very, very low density charts and, to top it all off, use red ink to denote the numbered chart outlines. This just doesn't work well in the dark with red lights and even more so if you are trying to find the chart for area of the sky with no constellation asterism component and no bright stars (especially those areas between constellations).
If the MSA had no red ink and more detailed chart keys (more akin to the ones SA2K and U2K use), it could have quite a bit more value in the field.
By the way.. there is a paperback MSA edition out there now (which I don't have). I understand it is the same as the hardcover edition. The only downside to this is that U2K and SA2K have been vetted for a lot of errata through their subsequent editions and I don't think MSA has, yet (nor am I aware of any plans to, either).
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
mikiek
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/10/07
Posts: 925
Loc: SE Texas
|
|
Thanks Bic! - That helps a lot. U2K will definately be added to the library. Is the field guide worth having?
You are fortunate to have MSA. I didn't know there was a paperback version, I haven't seen it being sold (at least at the sites I normally search).
--------------------
___________________________________________________________
May there always be starlight on the path - R.Burnham
___________________________________________________________
Celestron CPC 1100
Radian 3mm, 5mm, 8mm, 12mm
Panoptic 22mm, 27mm, 35mm(the brick), 41mm (the cinder block)
Nagler 3-6 zoom, T4 17mm
Ethos 13mm
Everbrite Diagonal 2", Powermate 2X
FeatherTouch Crayford, Microfocuser
Telrad Finder, SV 9x50 RACI
Kendrick Dew System
TV NP-101(riding the CPC)
Edited by mikiek (07/01/08 04:57 PM)
|
bicparker
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1438
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
I would go ahead and get the field guide. It, like the first edition, was independently compiled, which I think adds some value in identifying errata that always can occur with such a magnum opus (although they did a good job of vetting a lot of the original errors from the first edition).
The real value of the field guide, for me, is getting some specific information on objects that the atlas can't convey. The notes on the objects, of course, are valuable intrinsically. But information like major and minimum axis dimensions for galaxies and surface brightness data (against the visual magnitudes) can be enormous in judging what you might expect to see in a given telescope.
You may not use it every time you use your primary volumes of the atlases, but when you need it, you will likely be glad you have it available.
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
bicparker
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1438
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
By the way, I might add that, given your location in Texas, you will appreciate and need the Volume 2 (Southern Hemisphere) of U2K. I noticed that someone mentioned that in some parts of the USA volume 1 may be all you need. But not where you live. You will need Volume 2 as well. South of the celestial equator includes such constellations as Orion, Hydra, Eridanus, Lepus, Fornax, Corvus, Sculptor, Centaurus, Scorpius, Sagittarius, and many others that are quite visible from your neck of the woods.
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
mikiek
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/10/07
Posts: 925
Loc: SE Texas
|
|
Right - I ordered the whole set. -6º definately does not cut it. Thanks again!
--------------------
___________________________________________________________
May there always be starlight on the path - R.Burnham
___________________________________________________________
Celestron CPC 1100
Radian 3mm, 5mm, 8mm, 12mm
Panoptic 22mm, 27mm, 35mm(the brick), 41mm (the cinder block)
Nagler 3-6 zoom, T4 17mm
Ethos 13mm
Everbrite Diagonal 2", Powermate 2X
FeatherTouch Crayford, Microfocuser
Telrad Finder, SV 9x50 RACI
Kendrick Dew System
TV NP-101(riding the CPC)
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 10957
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
Here's the link to my mini-review of the differences between the gen 1 and gen 2 versions:
mini review
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
mikiek
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 10/10/07
Posts: 925
Loc: SE Texas
|
|
Good write up Don! I'm really looking forward to getting the set. Should be here in the next few days. 
I suppose that some will always be somewhat nostalgic about a 1st printing. Me on the other hand, I'm always looking for new and improved especially if it is really improved.
This will be a fantastic addition to my library. Now, if I can only get my hands on the Millenium Star Atlas. 
--------------------
___________________________________________________________
May there always be starlight on the path - R.Burnham
___________________________________________________________
Celestron CPC 1100
Radian 3mm, 5mm, 8mm, 12mm
Panoptic 22mm, 27mm, 35mm(the brick), 41mm (the cinder block)
Nagler 3-6 zoom, T4 17mm
Ethos 13mm
Everbrite Diagonal 2", Powermate 2X
FeatherTouch Crayford, Microfocuser
Telrad Finder, SV 9x50 RACI
Kendrick Dew System
TV NP-101(riding the CPC)
|
Starman1
Vendor - Scope City
Reged: 06/24/03
Posts: 10957
Loc: Los Angeles
|
|
The MSA has a slightly larger scale and more stars, so it's disappointing it only has 1/3 the number of DSOs that the U2000 has.
The "ultimate" printed star atlas, the SkyGX has been put on hold indefinitely.
--------------------
Don Pensack
12.5" Truss Dob, 5" Maksutov
Sustaining Lifetime IDA member, TeleVue junkie
|
RLTYS
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/04
Posts: 1741
Loc: New York (Long Island)
|
|
Quote:
The "ultimate" printed star atlas, the SkyGX has been put on hold indefinitely.
Starman1
Never heard of the SkyGX. Can you tell us more about it?
Clear Skies.
Rich (RLTYS)
--------------------
10" F4.8 Refl.
4" F5 Refr.
50mm F12 Refr. (Tasco #6TE-5)
12x63 and 10x50 Binoculars.
"I want to do more then just look."
|
|
2 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: desertstars, ~Steph~
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1637
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
