Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Speciality Forums >> Astro Art, Books, Websites & Other Media

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)
JimK
Skygazer
*****

Reged: 09/18/05

Loc: Albuquerque, NM USA
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: HellsKitchen]
      #5275355 - 06/17/12 09:29 AM

Quote:

I own both the Millenium Star Atlas and the entire C-series of the Tri-Atlas printed on A3 paper.

I actually use the MSA in the field and is very handy for star hopping, even if it is bulky and heavy. And after 10 years in the dew, it is no worse for wear, pages all intact, no issues with the binding, print still like new!


Wonderful!

This is such an amazing hobby. There are many ways to approach it, many ways to make it more enjoyable. And despite some of the questions/topics about "the best", there's really is no single "best" optical device or accessory or technique or reference material. People can learn about what others may do or not do, but everyone can choose what works for them, given their eyeballs, budget, location, interests, etc.

We just need enough participants in this astronomy hobby so that there is sufficient demand for things like keeping the Millennium Star Atlas in print so that all who wish choose a particular option can do so. Sigh ...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
cliff mygatt
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 01/27/09

Loc: Kitsap County, WA
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: pjglad]
      #5277443 - 06/18/12 05:21 PM

There is a copy for sale on Amart just posted for $500. Maybe he can be talked down.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
The Ardent
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 10/24/08

Loc: Virginia
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: cliff mygatt]
      #5279334 - 06/19/12 06:01 PM

I bought the Byrch Great Atlas last year and never used it.

My Millenium is no longder in collectible condition but thats ok, I use it in the field.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DavidNealMinnick
sage
*****

Reged: 03/06/06

Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: HellsKitchen]
      #5279819 - 06/19/12 10:54 PM

Quote:

And after 10 years in the dew, it is no worse for wear, pages all intact, no issues with the binding, print still like new!




My hardback copy is as you describe, my softback set has suffered binding failure, alas.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: DavidNealMinnick]
      #5295121 - 06/29/12 04:26 PM

This atlas was always too light on DSOs for scopes larger than 8", but is great in format and the number of stars.
Uranometria 2000.0 is FAR better on the number of DSOs, but is a little light on stars.
There was going to be a 6-volume atlas called the SkyGX from Christopher Watson:
Info Here that would have been the atlas we were all looking for--a ton of stars and enough DSOs for a lifetime, even with big scopes.
But it never made it into print.

As I see it:

Pocket Sky Atlas--great beginner's atlas for 4" up.

Sky Atlas 2000--great atlas for the 6-8" scope

Millenium Sky Atlas--the printed atlas for the 8" scope.

Uranometria 2000--THE atlas for 12-15"

And for the 16"+ scope in a dark site? Lots of good computer programs, but nothing at that level in print.

Of course, having a larger scope and using U2000 isn't a bad idea--it's just that you will continually find fields with 7 galaxies where U2000 shows 2 or 3.

So, for the big scope owner, there is always printing a page from a computer atlas to take to the field. YOU choose how deep the stars go, how many objects show up, and the scale. I've printed pages one degree on a side for some of the Hickson groups. The only rub is that it really requires a lot of planning before the observing session.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
edwincjones
Close Enough
*****

Reged: 04/10/04

Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: Starman1]
      #5295191 - 06/29/12 05:09 PM

do not forget Sky Map 600 for naked eye, binoculars, beginners

edj


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
amicus sidera
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/14/11

Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: Starman1]
      #5299832 - 07/02/12 08:58 PM

Quote:

Don wrote:
(snip)

As I see it:

Pocket Sky Atlas--great beginner's atlas for 4" up.

Sky Atlas 2000--great atlas for the 6-8" scope

Millenium Sky Atlas--the printed atlas for the 8" scope.

Uranometria 2000--THE atlas for 12-15"

And for the 16"+ scope in a dark site? Lots of good computer programs, but nothing at that level in print.

(snip)




I concur with your choices, but an addition if I may: The Edmund Mag 6 Star Atlas.

Yes, it's dated, with 1950 coordinates and a layout that some dislike, but for those with instruments in the 4" to 8" aperture range, under light-polluted skies, it works well. Certainly a stepping-stone atlas, but I feel that it has its place.

Also agree that the Millennium Star Atlas is light on DSO's, which is why I never was much interested in it. Additionally, I find Uranometria to be quite useful when using instruments in the 6" to 8" aperture range at a dark site.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: amicus sidera]
      #5299842 - 07/02/12 09:04 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Don wrote:
(snip)

As I see it:

Pocket Sky Atlas--great beginner's atlas for 4" up.

Sky Atlas 2000--great atlas for the 6-8" scope

Millenium Sky Atlas--the printed atlas for the 8" scope.

Uranometria 2000--THE atlas for 12-15"

And for the 16"+ scope in a dark site? Lots of good computer programs, but nothing at that level in print.

(snip)




I concur with your choices, but an addition if I may: The Edmund Mag 6 Star Atlas.

Yes, it's dated, with 1950 coordinates and a layout that some dislike, but for those with instruments in the 4" to 8" aperture range, under light-polluted skies, it works well. Certainly a stepping-stone atlas, but I feel that it has its place.



I agree. Virtually any atlas will do. I started with the Skalnate-Pleso Atlas Coeli of Becvar and it was great for my 4.25" reflector and 4" refractor. I thought the Pocket Sky Atlas was the modern equivalent, but there are many good choices in the low price points.
In fact, the best beginner's atlas I've seen is the magnitude seven atlas here on CN, and it's FREE!
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1052


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
amicus sidera
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/14/11

Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: Starman1]
      #5299847 - 07/02/12 09:07 PM

Don, I have fond memories of using the Becvar atlas to steer an observatory-housed 16" reflector around in the late 70's and early 80's! It is indeed a classic.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
*****

Reged: 02/28/06

Loc: Petaluma, CA
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: amicus sidera]
      #5300051 - 07/03/12 12:17 AM

I framed a bunch of the charts from the Skalnate Pleso atlas, and hung them in my office at work as "art". I have the Millenium Star Atlas, and the Herald-Bobroff, and Uranometria, and, and, and,...AND I like Uranometria best for 8" to 16" scopes, 16" being my biggest.

I find the Pocket Sky Atlas to be awkward when your constellation straddles widely different sections of the Atlas. I prefer Sky Atlas 2000 (all versions) over the Pocket unit as a result.

Oh, and Herald-Bobroff is a cool atlas, once you commit the elaborate iconography to memory. I'd rate it as a close second to Uranometria, and superior in some ways (by virtue of its plasticized pages and spiral binding).

Regards,

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rich (RLTYS)
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 12/18/04

Loc: New York (Long Island)
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: jrbarnett]
      #5300185 - 07/03/12 06:06 AM

No one's mentioned "Norton's Star Atlas" a true classic.

Rich (RLTYS)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
amicus sidera
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/14/11

Loc: East of the Sun, West of the M...
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: Rich (RLTYS)]
      #5300567 - 07/03/12 12:13 PM

Good point, Rich! I think almost everyone who took up astronomy in the 50's and 60's had a copy of Norton's - undoubtedly a classic.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: amicus sidera]
      #5301041 - 07/03/12 06:06 PM

Quote:

Oh, and Herald-Bobroff is a cool atlas, once you commit the elaborate iconography to memory. I'd rate it as a close second to Uranometria, and superior in some ways (by virtue of its plasticized pages and spiral binding).




I agree that H-B is a really good atlas, but it is due to the iconography that I do not use the atlas in the field any more. Looking at symbols that do not represent the shape of the object and trying to see the gap or the tic mark in the symbol was just to much for me.

I much prefer Sky Atlas 2000 (all versions), and much better is Uranometria 2000, the 2nd edition.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pollux556
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 12/14/08

Re: Millennium Star Atlas new [Re: blb]
      #5301073 - 07/03/12 06:24 PM

Quote:


I agree that H-B is a really good atlas, but it is due to the iconography that I do not use the atlas in the field any more. Looking at symbols that do not represent the shape of the object and trying to see the gap or the tic mark in the symbol was just to much for me.

I much prefer Sky Atlas 2000 (all versions), and much better is Uranometria 2000, the 2nd edition.




Buddy,

Is there a big difference between the first and second edition of the Uranometria atlas ?

Thanks


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blb
Post Laureate


Reged: 11/25/05

Loc: Piedmont NC
Re: Millennium Star Atlas [Re: Pollux556]
      #5301110 - 07/03/12 06:54 PM

Andre,
Others here are better at relating the differences between these two atlases. I have never owned the first edition so, although I have heard of some of the differences, I can't really describe them.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starman1
Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)
*****

Reged: 06/24/03

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Millennium Star Atlas [Re: Pollux556]
      #5301131 - 07/03/12 07:15 PM

Quote:

Quote:


I agree that H-B is a really good atlas, but it is due to the iconography that I do not use the atlas in the field any more. Looking at symbols that do not represent the shape of the object and trying to see the gap or the tic mark in the symbol was just to much for me.

I much prefer Sky Atlas 2000 (all versions), and much better is Uranometria 2000, the 2nd edition.




Buddy,

Is there a big difference between the first and second edition of the Uranometria atlas ?

Thanks



A huge difference.
1) More stars in 1st Ed.(though thousands were questionable in magnitude and location)
2) Many thousand (5000+) fewer DSOs in 1st Ed. (the Catalog had these objects listed as "in the field of")
3) More history of star atlases article in 1st Ed.
4) Transparent overlays were in both volumes in the 1st Ed. (only one set in the 2nd Ed.), though the transparent overlays are better in the 2nd Ed.
5) The BIG difference, though, was in the chart orientations. Instead of chart 10 going to chart 11 by turning the page in sequence, and having charts 11 and 12 continue across the page from left to right (with only one number instead of two), as is the case in the 2nd Ed., in the first edition the pages were arranged by RA, so when you went to the right of the page you were on, you continued on the left of the previous page, and so on. This made scanning across pages extremely difficult, and it made locating objects non-intuitive. Since each page was numbered, it meant roughly twice as many chart numbers to look up. I felt it was like reading in Hebrew--start in the back and work forward--not impossible, just not like any previous atlas.
6) The chart guide in the 2nd Ed. is right inside the cover. In the 1st Ed, it was 6+ pages inside the back cover, followed by a lot of blank white pages. Talk about inconvenient!
7) Each printing of the 1st Ed. had pages of error corrections in the back instead of merely correcting them on the pages. All these errors were corrected in the 2nd Ed.
8) The 3rd volume (the DSFG catalog) in the first edition had many more errors in it than in the 2nd Ed.

So, the 2nd Edition is:
--more accurate
--easier to use
--has more objects plotted
--has an easier-to-use index
--has better transparent overlays
--has a better index.
The second edition was created based on feedback from users of the first edition. If you ever plan to use it in the field, it is the version to get, and, anyway, it is the only version still in print.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pollux556
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 12/14/08

Re: Millennium Star Atlas [Re: Starman1]
      #5301340 - 07/03/12 10:02 PM

Quote:


So, the 2nd Edition is:
--more accurate
--easier to use
--has more objects plotted
--has an easier-to-use index
--has better transparent overlays
--has a better index.
The second edition was created based on feedback from users of the first edition. If you ever plan to use it in the field, it is the version to get, and, anyway, it is the only version still in print.




Thank you very much for this valuable information Don.

It's right that the chapter called: " Uranography Yesterday and Today " is very very interesting.

So I have first Edition reprinted july 1991.

Edited by Pollux556 (07/03/12 10:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
KidOrion
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/07/07

Loc: Carbondale, IL
Re: Millennium Star Atlas [Re: Starman1]
      #5301744 - 07/04/12 04:22 AM

Quote:


A huge difference.
1) More stars in 1st Ed.(though thousands were questionable in magnitude and location)
2) Many thousand (5000+) fewer DSOs in 1st Ed. (the Catalog had these objects listed as "in the field of")
3) More history of star atlases article in 1st Ed.
4) Transparent overlays were in both volumes in the 1st Ed. (only one set in the 2nd Ed.), though the transparent overlays are better in the 2nd Ed.
5) The BIG difference, though, was in the chart orientations. Instead of chart 10 going to chart 11 by turning the page in sequence, and having charts 11 and 12 continue across the page from left to right (with only one number instead of two), as is the case in the 2nd Ed., in the first edition the pages were arranged by RA, so when you went to the right of the page you were on, you continued on the left of the previous page, and so on. This made scanning across pages extremely difficult, and it made locating objects non-intuitive. Since each page was numbered, it meant roughly twice as many chart numbers to look up. I felt it was like reading in Hebrew--start in the back and work forward--not impossible, just not like any previous atlas.
6) The chart guide in the 2nd Ed. is right inside the cover. In the 1st Ed, it was 6+ pages inside the back cover, followed by a lot of blank white pages. Talk about inconvenient!
7) Each printing of the 1st Ed. had pages of error corrections in the back instead of merely correcting them on the pages. All these errors were corrected in the 2nd Ed.
8) The 3rd volume (the DSFG catalog) in the first edition had many more errors in it than in the 2nd Ed.

So, the 2nd Edition is:
--more accurate
--easier to use
--has more objects plotted
--has an easier-to-use index
--has better transparent overlays
--has a better index.
The second edition was created based on feedback from users of the first edition. If you ever plan to use it in the field, it is the version to get, and, anyway, it is the only version still in print.




Also, the 2nd Ed. has galaxy orientations for all galaxies it shows, whereas the 1st Ed. only has them for very large (in angular size) galaxies.

One quibble I have with the 2nd Ed: the DSFG doesn't have additional names for planetary nebulae beyond the PK numbers. When they switched to PNG numbers for planetaries (I may be in the minority here, but I wish they'd stayed with the PK numbers where they were correct and/or given), the DSFG dropped all the Abell/Henize/Humason/etc.designations for planetaries and just included the PKs in the "other designation" category. So now, if I want to figure out which chart contains Minkowski 1-18, I have to either go straight to the Internet (not always possible for me), or use the 1st Ed. DSFG (or the Hynes book) to find the appropriate PK number, then use the 2nd Ed. DSFG to convert from PK to PNG.

If I wasn't such a Luddite, of course, I might have less of an issue with this.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Millennium Star Atlas [Re: KidOrion]
      #5302471 - 07/04/12 03:31 PM

I prefer the "binned" stars of the 1st edition. The graded stars of the 2nd ed. tend to get lost on the page for me when it gets to the fainter stars. And I don't understand why 50,000 stars had to be purged from the 2nd ed. Couldn't the positions & magnitudes have just been corrected?

All in all, though, I think both editions are worth having. The 2nd ed. lives in my observatory.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
KidOrion
professor emeritus


Reged: 07/07/07

Loc: Carbondale, IL
Re: Millennium Star Atlas [Re: Rick Woods]
      #5302548 - 07/04/12 04:07 PM

I also have both; the 1st Ed. goes into the field with me, while the 2nd stays at home as a reference.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)


Extra information
2 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Geo557, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 10555

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics