"Tony Flanders" wrote in message
. ..
Alexander Avtanski wrote in message
...

Is it good enough for regular deep-sky observing -
nebulae, galaxies?

Certainly. It was the first detailed atlas that I used, and it
worked just fine. The cartography is fairly crude, the number of
DSOs charted is modest, and only the Messier objects are labeled.
But if you know the RA and Dec of the objects you want to look at,
it certainly shows enough stars to find them.

Uranometria or Sky Atlas 2000 do much the same job with vastly
better cartography and labeling. SA 2000 doesn't show as many stars,
though, and Uranometria costs a lot more.


I'm really liking the Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas. The other night I just
_knew_ I had an opportunity to bag one of the last Messisers on my now three
year long Messier Marathon, M55. Being at the southern most declination of
all the Messiers, I have but one chance to get it at its most visible in my
backyard.

So, what's that go to do with it? Well, if you're over 40, and have every
seen the DSO labels in StarAtlas 2000, you surely realize how difficult they
are to read without your over-40 reading glasses.

OTOH, open the Herald-Bobroff AstrAtlas, shine the red LED light on the
master chart page, find the "Bn" (bright star) chart that has the
constellation in question, go to the Bn chart and get the "Cn" (detail)
chart for that area. Turn to the Cn chart and there, in easy view, are all
of the M's with nice, big alphanumerics. No glasses necessary, stars to
magnitude 9-ish (not all charts in the Altas go the same depth, some are
deeper).

Anyway, that's my experience. Love the H-B out under the stars. The paper is
unbelievably water-resistant... and, it is an excellent desktop reference
chart as well.

Lymax has them (or they did). Best astro-money I've spent in a long time.

Stephen Paul