The MSA does not have the number of DSOs the U2000 has; but that wasn't its primary purpose. It was produced from a *star* catalog, and it's titled the "Millinnium *Star* Atlas" (not DSO atlas). The DSOs are gravy.
I don't think most people would consider DSOs gravy.
I've always wondered about getting this Atlas. The lack of DSOs is certainly the deal-breaker for me though.
I'm not questioning the altas' usefulness for what it was intended for. I just think this lessens its' appeal for many of us.
-------------------- David
Post Extras:
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 5652
Loc: Inner Solar System
DSOs are only gravy in that they weren't the primary impetus for the atlas; they were added afterward to increase its value as a general purpose work. The U2000 was already out for the DSO-oriented astronomer. The MSA is a different animal. If sheer quantity of DSOs charted is what you're looking for primarily, the U2000 is a much better choice. But the MSA has different strong points, including quantity of stars and double star information. Plus, it's just a beautiful atlas, worth having if for no other reason than a love of beautiful atlases.
Maybe you'll get a chance to look through on some time, and change your mind. Or maybe not. The U2000 is certainly up to any task you're likely to put to it; but they do compliment each other very nicely.
-------------------- - Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
