|
|
|
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
|
|
|
› See most helpful viewpoints
|
|
33 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
Compromise between Peterson's F. G. and SkyAtlas 2000, December 15, 1999
Cambrigde Star Atlas fills a void for me. I have had Peterson's Field Guide for 15 years. Peterson's has lot's of interesting text info to go along with each chart, but charts are many and small. I recently got Sky Atlas Deluxe. It has great charts but no tables of info. Cambridge is a compromise. It does not show as many stars as either of the other two, but shows enough stars and a considerable number of deep sky objects, with tables accompanying each chart to show coordinates of the objects on that chart. It's not a pocket book like Peterson's, but is a good size to take outside while at the scope. Sky Atlas 2000 is to big to take outside, but is the charts I use at my desk. Cambridge will be the book that is on my little work table when I'm in a field with my scope late at night and just can't seem to find that deep sky object by star hopping. The tables provided with each chart don't list all the deep sky you want to see, but they list enough to keep you occupied.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
Best wide field star atlas, August 20, 2001
Having looked at all the alternatives, this is my favorite small star atlas. With each chart covering 4 hours of right ascension, this atlas lets you get oriented to the major features of a part of the sky in order to start a star-hop. It includes plenty of deep-sky objects to keep you busy.It is *not* sufficient to show all the stars or objects you can see in a small scope - for that, you need Uranometria 2000 (also by Trion) or the Millenium Sky Atlas. But then you're talking a major investmant. In the field, I tend to use Cambridge and Uranometria - Cambridge for star-hopping in close, then Uranometria for nailing down the exact field. By now, my copy is somewhat warped from absorbing so much dew over so many nights - but it still lies flat when opened. As others have mentioned, the monthly charts are somewhat superfluous if you have a planisphere. Anyhow, as you learn the sky, a planisphere quickly becomes unnecessary.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
The perfect size, July 13, 1998
By A Customer
In addition to this atlas, I own Sky Atlas 2000, Uranometria, and the Millenium Star Atlas, and this is by far the one I use the most. It is a scaled down version of Sky Atlas 2000, and it's reduced size, the convienience of having more of the sky fit on each map, and the increased overlap between charts far outweigh the extra detail you get with Sky Atlas. Of course there are times when more detail is needed, but at these times it's usually best to go stright to Uranometria or MSA. There are a few annoying printing errors, but not enough to interfere with the practicality of the atlas. There are enough deep sky objects plotted to keep you busy for a long time.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
Your companion to the Stars., May 19, 2000
Computers too bulky, pocket books too small? This is probably one of the better books to have at your observing session and site. It makes your observing just that much easier. The pages are loaded with information that others lack. Granted the book does not include all the stars, and why would you want too? It would only add to the confusion of finding the object your really after when your out there in the dark looking at the pages under a red light! The book limits itself to the 23rd magnitude which is fine! Anything beyond that is over kill for the amatuer astronomer anyway. This book gives you the meat and potato's! Good stuff!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
Not the best, June 29, 2006
On the plus side, the star charts are the most clear and readable of any 6th magnitude atlas. Unfortunately, the atlas contains a couple of flaws which impede its usefulness in the field.
It goes to magnitude 6.5 and shows 9500 stars, which limits its usefulness. Even a lowly 6x30mm finder goes considerably deeper than that.
When you look for an object just off the edge of one of your charts, the edge of the chart tells you nothing about where to go next. You have to fumble back to the index page to find out which chart to go to, which is time consuming and aggravating.
Terrestrial atlases place guides at the edges of their maps: "continues on 14." This is all the more important for astronomical observation, where the user is in the dark with nothing but a red flashlight and possibly holding an eyepiece or filter. To make the atlas practicable for field use, users must write the adjacent chart information on the charts themselves. A row of tabs with the numbers of the charts would make the charts even more usable.
It is sad when designers of star atlases do not take into account the needs of their users.
A better combination 6th magnitude atlas and observer's guide is Levy's Skywatching. But I would recommend skipping 6th magnitude altogether. Get the Sky and Telescope Pocket Star Atlas instead. It is better designed, goes far deeper--to magnitude 7.6 with 31,000 stars, and costs less. Supplement it with an observer's guide like Skywatching or Celestial Sampler.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Gets Used Most Nights, March 23, 2002
This is the only Star Atlas I have, and I've been using it most nights I am out using the telescope or just studying the night sky. I havn't had the opportunity to compare it with Star Atlas 2000, but to date I have been relatively happy with the purchase. I can't say I have found the best way to physically handle the book when I'm outside, not wanting to damage it or get moisture on it from the dew. I think this would be a consideration next time I make a Star Atlas purchase. A laminated one would be excellent. I would be interested in hearing from people who have other publications, to provide some sort of comparison.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
good reference book, June 30, 1999
By A Customer
this book of maps would probably be awelcome addition for an experiencedastronomer.....not for a beginningfan of astronomy. Nightwatch wouldbe my recommendation to the later.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Not recommended., September 2, 2006
I have this book and I am very disappointed in it.
Yes, the charts are very well done. However, the book's layout and organization (or lack thereof) make the charts next to useless. They do next to nothing for the beginner who needs first to learn the sky. For the more serious observer, these charts are hopeless.
I would encourage beginner's to look at Norton's Atlas (20th edition) which has nice, large swaths of the sky covered in each chart along with a large reference section. Yes, if you get serious, you'll outgrow Norton's charts quickly, but you'll still have its useful reference material which is the bulk of the book.
For the serious observer, there's the Sky Atlas 2000.0, the Millenium, and older Uranometria atlases, all of which have much more detail that the serious observer craves.
As other reviewers have observed, these middle level charts (up to Mag 6) are probably not very uselful for either beginner or serious observer. I would add, "especially in the format presented here".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
A Great General Reference With Good Sky Maps, May 19, 1999
By A Customer
If you were to buy just one book, this one would be a good choice. It has both seasonal sky charts and detailed sky maps down to magnatude 6.5 for both southern and northern hemispheres. It also contains a good moon map. There are also general explanations for seasonal phenomenon, double stars, galaxy types, etc. etc.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Cool atlas, March 16, 2003
I have a 4 inch apo and if you have scope like me, buy this little gem. Sky maps are just beatiful, having exactly as much info as I need. They are beautifully rendered by a master. Maps overlap generously. Tables are above every map and they are pleasure to use. Of course there is only 912 deep sky objects, but if you have a light bucket over 10" you need an atlas at least as heavy as your scope:) For me it is more than enough. There are very interesting all-sky maps of various objects distribution. They give you a good feeling of our position in Galaxy and Universe. I gave only four stars because in the field it can catch dew and you have to be carefull. The Moon map is not the best and for a reflector, so not good for me. Highly recomended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
