pocket sky atlas or Sky atlas 2000?

I have been using both the S&T pocket sky atlas the Sky Atlas Deluxe
which I borrowed from the library.

I am deliberating about whether to buy the Deluxe or the pocket atlas.
I find that the Deluxe is difficult to bring out in the field, but is
perhaps a clearer for finding sky objects. The pocket atlas is easy to
use in the field, however, the size of the stars are not as big,

Or I could buy both

I don't think I will opt for the laminated versions of the Sky Atlas
2000.

I would appreciate feedback on this.
Clearer Skies
Bruce

On Nov 9, 8:25 pm, brucegooglegroups
wrote:
[...]
I don't think I will opt for the laminated versions of the Sky Atlas
2000.

I would appreciate feedback on this.

Why not? The laminated version will survive "dew destruction".
Seriously.

On Nov 9, 11:57 pm, " wrote:
On Nov 9, 8:25 pm, brucegooglegroups
wrote:

[...]
I don't think I will opt for the laminated versions of the Sky Atlas
2000.

I would appreciate feedback on this.

Why not? The laminated version will survive "dew destruction".
Seriously.

The Northern and Southern Volumes of the Uranometria 2000 cost less
than the laminated Deluxe Sky Atlas 2000, with enough left over for
the pocket atlas. To prevent dew damage, close the atlas when you
aren't actually looking at it.

On Nov 10, 6:32 am, wrote:
On Nov 9, 11:57 pm, " wrote:

On Nov 9, 8:25 pm, brucegooglegroups
wrote:

[...]
I don't think I will opt for the laminated versions of the Sky Atlas
2000.

I would appreciate feedback on this.

Why not? The laminated version will survive "dew destruction".
Seriously.

The Northern and Southern Volumes of the Uranometria 2000 cost less
than the laminated Deluxe Sky Atlas 2000, with enough left over for
the pocket atlas. To prevent dew damage, close the atlas when you
aren't actually looking at it.

My problem is that I didn't want a black background for the field
version. The laminated deluxe version is a bit big to bring outside
and look at- or does one get used to it?

I heard that Uranometria is for more a larger telescope.
Bruce

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:22:50 -0800, brucegooglegroups
wrote:

My problem is that I didn't want a black background for the field
version. The laminated deluxe version is a bit big to bring outside
and look at- or does one get used to it?

The Desk Edition of Sky Atlas 2000.0 is black stars on white
background and is available laminated for the same price as the
laminated field edition.

Bud

--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

On Nov 10, 9:22 am, brucegooglegroups
wrote:

The laminated deluxe version is a bit big to bring outside
and look at- or does one get used to it?

Accomodations are easier to implement for some people than for
others. Some use small, collapsable, camping tables for charts.
Others build their own chart stands or tables -- often with provisions
for dim, red lighting.

I heard that Uranometria is for more a larger telescope.

There are many ways to make use of the various atlases. Some (myself
included) have used the Uranometria and even the Millennium atlas when
using binoculars (often 20x80s, but sometimes larger or smaller) under
a dark sky. That being said, I would be hesitant to recommend either
of these atlases as a *first* atlas.

As for your initial question, the purchase of either (Pocket Atlas or
Sky Atlas 2000) ought to be fine. If you stick with the hobby long
enough you may find yourself owning a wide assortment of atlases, each
better than the others in one way or another, or for one purpose or
another. Go for the one you feel you would *currently* get the most
use out of.

Bill Greer
To sketch is to see.

On Nov 10, 11:22 am, brucegooglegroups
wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:32 am, wrote:



On Nov 9, 11:57 pm, " wrote:

On Nov 9, 8:25 pm, brucegooglegroups
wrote:

[...]
I don't think I will opt for the laminated versions of the Sky Atlas
2000.

I would appreciate feedback on this.

Why not? The laminated version will survive "dew destruction".
Seriously.

The Northern and Southern Volumes of the Uranometria 2000 cost less
than the laminated Deluxe Sky Atlas 2000, with enough left over for
the pocket atlas. To prevent dew damage, close the atlas when you
aren't actually looking at it.

My problem is that I didn't want a black background for the field
version. The laminated deluxe version is a bit big to bring outside
and look at- or does one get used to it?

I heard that Uranometria is for more a larger telescope.
Bruce

While a small scope won't show all of the DSOs plotted in the
Uranometria, the atlas has so many stars plotted that it helps you to
more easily find or identify those DSOs that ARE visible in your
scope. It's also fun to browse the charts on a cloudy night and learn
more about the sky. It may even whet your appetite for a larger
scope.

There are hundreds of charts in the Uranometia, each showing only a
small amount of sky, so you will probably need a small scale atlas to
get your bearings, or else use the 'big picture' charts included in
the Uranometria.

On Nov 9, 9:25?pm, brucegooglegroups
wrote:
I have been using both the S&T pocket sky atlas the Sky Atlas Deluxe
which I borrowed from the library.

I am deliberating about whether to buy the Deluxe or the pocket atlas.
I find that the Deluxe is difficult to bring out in the field, but is
perhaps a clearer for finding sky objects. The pocket atlas is easy to
use in the field, however, the size of the stars are not as big,

Or I could buy both

I don't think I will opt for the laminated versions of the Sky Atlas
2000.

I would appreciate feedback on this.
Clearer Skies
Bruce

I prefer the Skiff / Tirion Bright Star Atlas. It is a mag six star
atlas and if you have reasonably dark skies and a Telrad it is the
easiest to carry around and to use (IMO). It has like 600 objects
plotted in just 10 pages of maps. Opposite each map is a table of data
regarding the objects visible on the map - Diffuse and Planetary
Nebulae, galaxies, Open and Globular clusters, double stars and
variable stars. It's a good one to own, at the very least.

rat
~( ):