Cambridge Star Atlas?

[Wardr77]

Hello all!

I've recently been enjoying browsing the heavens with the Sky and Telescope pocket sky atlas; looking at the maps identifying the IC and NGCs noted there and then going to take a look with the scope. The observations are often checked there and then with a quick online research of the subject via phone / ipad; a  back to front way of doing things perhaps but nevertheless quite an enjoyable and unplanned method of observing. 

Question then is this. The S&T is very good but I believe is more inclined to the identification of objects for the smaller scope. Is there then a bigger brother of this book that identifies additional DSOs for the larger apertures? I was wondering if the Cambridge Star Atlas fits the bill? Can anyone recommend this or similar publications?

Many thanks in advance!

Rob

[John]

I use the S&T Pocket Sky Atlas a lot but when I want more detail I use Interstellarium which is on a larger scale, shows fainter stars and more challenging objects. It also has a very useful indicator design into the layout which gives you an idea of what aperture of scope might be needed to see the object. It's quite a lot more expensive than the S&T one but I really like it:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/books/interstellarum-deep-sky-atlas-desk-edition.html

For a while I also had Uranometria 2000.0 but I found Interstellarium easier to use.

I also have the Cambridge Double Star Atlas which is also a good general star atlas which goes a little deeper than the S&T one at a more modest cost.

 

 

[Special K]

+1 What John said!  

I have both of those and they are excellent. 

[Wardr77]

Thanks to you both for your feedback! I will take a look at your recommendations.

Rob

[billyharris72]

Hi Rob,

I have the Cambridge (regular, not double) atlas and the Sky & Telescope was a definite upgrade. I think the mapping is a bit deeper in the S&T, in addition to the format being more robust and convenient. So I definitely would not see the Cambridge as a better option given your needs. John's suggestions are both good. I also find the ability to print maps from Cartes du Ciel to be really useful.

Billy.

[Wardr77]

Hi Billy,

Thanks for that. I naturally assumed the Cambridge would go deeper than the S&T, not so it seems! Interstellarium seems to be a good option.

Rob

[Mark at Beaufort]

The statement made by John above totally mirrors my view/experience of these star atlases. I always get a general feel for an observing session with S@T pocket atlas. Then I always switch to the Interstellarium which I place on a music stand next to the Telescope. I still have the Uranometria atlases which are gathering dust. I also have the Cambridge Double Star atlas which I only use when I have a session on double stars (logical).

My Interstellarium in the desk variety and its still ok despite a few damp nights. I am thinking of buying the Field version.

[Special K]

26 minutes ago, Wardr77 said:

Hi Billy,

Thanks for that. I naturally assumed the Cambridge would go deeper than the S&T, not so it seems! Interstellarium seems to be a good option.

Rob

There’s one consideration not mentioned yet and that is data on these lovely objects. The first atlas I bought was the Cambridge Star Atlas and it gives a page of data across from each page of the atlas.  There’s only room enough for the highlight objects but is useful info on magnitudes, brightness, double star separation, and sizes of objects. The Double Star Atlas only has data on binaries (albeit in  prodigious amounts  ) and Interstellarum doesn’t have data pages at all.  I still reference my copy for a higher level view, but rarely for the data now.