Previous edition Star Atlas-any reason not to?

[dannybgoode]

So the 4th edition Cambridge Star Atlas is £20 odd on Amazon and the 3rd edition 1p!

Is there any reason not to get the 3rd edition?

Thanks all

Sent from my RM-892_eu_euro1_249 using Tapatalk

[NGC 1502]

So the 4th edition Cambridge Star Atlas is £20 odd on Amazon and the 3rd edition 1p!

Is there any reason not to get the 3rd edition?

Thanks all

Sent from my RM-892_eu_euro1_249 using Tapatalk

I'd get the 1p version and send the £19.99 you saved to me for such good advice 

The Cambridge is a very nice star atlas that will last you for many years to come.  Very few of us (including me) will run out of objects to observe with that atlas.

I have SkyAtlas 2000, but it doesn't get used much.

Cheers, Ed.

[rwilkey]

Hi, the only thing that would sway me is whether the 3rd edition is sprial bound, if it is all well and good, if not I would rather pay the money and get the spiral bound, so much more handier when you are out 'on the job'.  I have spiral bound versions of the Double Star and the Herschel versions and they are great field atlases.

[bish]

I wish I had bought the Cambridge double star atlas a few years ago   - the last time I looked you could only get it for stupid money. Does anybody know if the Cambridge star atlas is much of an improvement over the S&T pocket sky atlas? I used to use A3 laminated  Sky Atlas 2000 sheets but found the S&T handier (for obvious reasons) but wondered if the Cambridge might be somewhere in between?

[NGC 1502]

I wish I had bought the Cambridge double star atlas a few years ago   - the last time I looked you could only get it for stupid money. Does anybody know if the Cambridge star atlas is much of an improvement over the S&T pocket sky atlas? I used to use A3 laminated  Sky Atlas 2000 sheets but found the S&T handier (for obvious reasons) but wondered if the Cambridge might be somewhere in between?

Comparing the Cambridge to the S&T - the Cambridge is at a slightly larger scale, and the larger pages do show more sky on each page.  The S&T does show more objects like the Barnard dark nebulae that I like to chase when at a dark site.

Of those two, for use at the telescope, my choice is the S&T, it's just so handy, but others may say differently.   I took mine apart, laminated the pages, and rebound in an A5 plastic binder.

I do use my SkyAtlas 2000 occasionally, mainly for indoor planning of a session.

Regards, Ed.

[bish]

Thanks Ed. I'd also considered buying a Uranometria 2000 but they are quite expensive and I wouldn't want to take it out with the dew.

[rwilkey]

I wish I had bought the Cambridge double star atlas a few years ago   - the last time I looked you could only get it for stupid money. Does anybody know if the Cambridge star atlas is much of an improvement over the S&T pocket sky atlas? I used to use A3 laminated  Sky Atlas 2000 sheets but found the S&T handier (for obvious reasons) but wondered if the Cambridge might be somewhere in between?

Little in it, though Cambridge atlas is a larger format.  However, I tend to use the S & T like Ed above, also this little treasure has more detail on nebulae, whereas the Cambridge misses some out.  The Sadr (central star in Cygnus) nebula is a prime example, shown on p.62 but not shown in Cambridge.

[acey]

I bought the Cambridge atlas years ago, used it once or twice, and quickly moved on to something else. The limit was only 6.5 mag, not enough for finding any but the easiest DSOs. It now sits on my shelf along with numerous other atlases that I never use. The ones I would recommend are (in order of detail, complexity and experience required to get the most out of them):

S&T Pocket

SkyAtlas 2000.0 field edition

Uranometria

I now use Great Atlas Of The Sky which is better than any of them, but is out of print.

Others obviously disagree about the value of the Cambridge Star Atlas, but 1p for the 3rd edition is worth a punt.

(Bish - my Uranometria spent many nights out in the dew and managed fine. The volumes now look far from pristine, having been thumbed in the dark with grubby gloved hands, but the thick pages never tore and the strong bindings remain perfectly intact. My S&T and SkyAtlas have withstood similar use equally well.)

In general there's nothing against using old edition star atlases - the stars haven't changed much in the last few thousand years. Precession and proper motion aren't an issue unless you're using RA and DEC co-ords to high precision. The important thing (assuming reasonable accuracy, adequate binding and decent condition) is the faintness limit for plotted objects. Some atlases include time-specific data for things such as planetary positions or comets over certain year ranges - that's the only thing that goes out of date. SkyAtlas Field Edition has white stars on black background - better for maintaining dark adaptation when looking at it under a dim red light. I wish all atlases were like that.