![]() I'd like to get my hands on one to try out.Įdited by BradFran, 16 April 2020 - 07:18 AM. Interstellarum depicts 202k stars to mag 9.5. Uranometria goes the extra mile, covering 280k stars to visual mag 9.75 "which is about what you will see in a 50mm finder scope." I also find the binding gets in the way at night on the chart table. ![]() If you need the detail, SA2000 just drops off a bit too much. I find Uranometria (old first edition) a little too busy for use with a red flashlight at night and prefer the larger format of the Sky Atlas. Very good description of the differences. And it covers truly huge swaths of sky per page. On the upside, the cartography is superb, matched only by the Pocket Sky Atlas. It just doesn't show enough stars for most of my purposes if I want a jump up from the Pocket Sky Atlas, I want a big jump. Sky Atlas 2000.0 is great for what it is, but it's much less detailed than Interstellarum, and also somewhat bulkier. ![]() It does have a bunch of problems, which I could elaborate at length if desired, but on the whole I find it exceedingly useful. I prefer it to Uranometria, because it covers much larger swaths of sky per pair of pages, and because it's spiral-bound rather than hard-bound. These days, I use Interstellarum as my workhorse detailed atlas.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |