Practical Astronomer...

[daz]

... seems to be going from strength to strength. This months is particularly interesting for imagers, with a great analysis of how a 'pro' imager does it.

It is a lot of work, make no mistake, but the results are more than worth it!!!

They also review the ETX90 this month, which makes an interesting read, and there's a basic Levels and Curves guide as well.

Not as packed as something like S@N or AN, but what is in there is relevant, I feel.

[GazOC]

Yep it a good mag. The only downside for me so far was the two part article on filters, all history and theory but not much "practical" as the mag title suggests. ie. what filters are recommended for different objects.

[The Warthog]

I've seen S@N and some other British astronomy mags here, so maybe this one will be in some of the larger newsstands. I'll have to look for it.

[FLO]

I think it is subscription only WH; check out their banner.

[AstroTiger]

i subscribe to the S@N and think its a fab read

Al

[Albireo380]

I agree that "Practical Astronomer" is proving a useful and different resource. I read it carefully, as it isn't like the othe Astro mags, where you can dip in and out - or skim over a lot of the articles. With "Practical Astronomer" there is often multi-step detail that requires several slow readings and some thinking.

It is an excellent magazine - I subscribed for 6 months only, but at the moment I intend to renew when my 6 months is up.

Tom

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Like Gaz I was disappointed with the filter test (no Baader neodymium, no CLS etc.) and I was waiting for the outcome which didn't come out. What can you see with what for goodness sake.

The latest issue has gone all star party crazy but also has really useful tips WRT imaging and Photoshoping.

The downloads are tempting, but I have a pile of my own stuff that I should either process "professionaly" or chuck away and I don't know if I dare bin stuff yet.

The bit I didn't get was the ED80 review. They had a carp 'scope delivered and sent it back because they had the kit to prove that it was pants. The second one was good, but nowhere did it say that 50% of these are rubbish. Maybe the sample size is a little too small for such comparisons, but hey, if I bought one, would I be able to prove that it was no good and get a replacement? I know that lots of people like the ED80 so it can't be as bad as the data suggests, but a glowing report (with some caveats) after having to get the thing replaced seems odd. Couldn't they just say that its rubbish and leave it there?

Captain Chaos

[GazOC]

"Padded" wasn't the word for that filter peice.....

I hadn't thought of the 50/50 ED80 thing, thats a very good point.

[The Warthog]

You would expect the manufacturer to take a little extra care if the scope was going away for a review, unless the magazine ordered it anonymously.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

From reading the review, they ordered anonymously in the first place, then complained and got the test version. A complaint containing the words Zygo and Coma would possibly ring enough bells that the best one they ever made got sent off immediately. The one they reported on was excellent but they do point out that the test of any equipment only applies to the particular instrument and should not be taken as applying to all similar models.

Being me, I'd have done the review of the first one and rated it as poor. That way they might get their act together in future if its a quality control issue.

I also had an issue with them naming the poor guy who sold them the duff one, as if it had anything to do with him! Granted it was printed as a thank you for his great service, but i can't help thinking that they could have done the thank you earlier, not after the thing was found wanting and he had to pick up the pieces as it were.

Captain Chaos