Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas Jumbo Edition Spiral-bound – January 18, 2016

This is the best atlas I have ever held in my hands and I strongly recommend it but it does not meet the requirements for the declared use "at the telescope" (pocket atlas).1) Too many redundant pages. The only pages you need at the telescope are charts and index. All other pages except cover can be either printed separately or provided electronically. The latter option is preferable because you buy a pocket atlas not for the information but for the design and printing.2) Too many redundant information on charts. What is good for a table-top atlas can be bad for a pocket atlas. I understand that by "dissecting" Sky Atlas 2000.0 we largely reduce the production cost but in this way we will never obtain a good pocket atlas. To be more specific, a perfect chart is the best copy of what you see on the sky plus minimum required information. According to this principle: i) ecliptic, coordinate grid (except in margins), proper names are redundant; ii) constellation and object names should be abbreviated, margins can be used for the detailed information; iii) label-connecting lines must be used only if the unique label identification is impossible; iv) bright nebula should be colored in more "pastel" color; v) there is no need to make the Sirius so big - star magnitude scale must be redesigned - we need clear magnitude distinction for faint stars and don't need this for bright stars; vi) overcrowded regions should be detailed on the separate high resolution charts while only the minimum labeling must be left on the main chart; vii) spaces inside the labels are usually redundant.3) The chosen partitioning of the sky is good probably for a meridian telescope in Equador but not for an open sky in US. The only solution I see at the atlas scale is to partition by constellation and asterisms. It is not trivial but it worths to be done.4) Portrait format for charts would be useful only in two-page view but the latter is inconvenient at the telescope: you must be able to hold the atlas in one hand. From this point of view the page-size can be increased if needed.5) The largest field of view of a telescope is rarely larger than 1 degree, therefore ideally each 1 degree on a chart should contain a star, so that the limiting magnitude should be 9 instead of 7.5. The star size for the limiting magnitude can be made "hairline" like constellation boundaries.6) Without finder charts any atlas is useless at the telescope. Therefore as many detailed charts as possible should be added at some predefined set of scales. This includes also charts for multiple stars.7) The extended cover hampers holding the atlas in hands and the additional information on this extension is useless. In any case chart margins can be used for providing additional information.8) The printing is glossy under the flashlight.9) To address the typical complaint of "nonprofessional amateurs", few large-scale charts for dummies should be added similar to those in Taki's 6.5 mag atlas.Everything else looks perfect.If somebody decide to make the perfect pocket atlas I would be happy to participate.

Heaven knows I don't need another star chart, but the other day I receivedyet another one after the recommendation of a friend. It was the PocketSky Atlas.There was something in the descriptor that struck a chord with me.The one I got I received new, still sealed and in perfect condition.If I were to change anything, and this is a very petty complaint, Iwould rather have seen that the front and back cover were both separatepages individually bound on the spiral rather than the front merelybeing a wrap around from the back.Also, I found a link mentioning two serious errors in the charts, anomission concerning part of Corona Borealis and the Virgo Cluster,however I see nothing wrong with those parts of my Atlas that I received.Apparently you want the second edition 2006 or later to avoid this verytiny discrepancy.The Pocket Atlas is interesting in that it is broken into 8 verticalsections or orange peels based on Right Ascension, but different in thateach starts at the north pole and works all the way to the south pole,for just that section (45° sector out of the full 360° sphere), and thenstarts back at the north pole again in the next section, rather thanstarting at the north and spiraling down to the south pole like acorkscrew as most other charts do.At first I had my doubts about that approach but in fact it works quitewell here.If I am to suggest and do anything, that would be to number each "peel"as "1" through "8" on the Contents page, then stick a numberedtab on the first page of each section. this way you could look up themonth or time of year (or time of night) on the contents page, findwhich section that date is under, then flip right to that section usingthe tab! Or use the back page to look up the particular area of sky bypage number.The charts themselves are essentially like a Deluxe (Color) Sky Atlas2000 just shrunk down in size. As such they have the benefit of havingnearly all of the objects and detail of its larger brethren but alsowith the liability of getting a little "busy" and harder to read due tothe crowding and smaller size of symbols needed--- a necessary andacceptable "evil" of being both powerful and pocket-able. But theymanage this very well and the charts remain very attractive and readable.In the back are cross references for stars, DSO's and the like so thatone can look up NGC 1234 and find out which chart it is on. All in all,I agree, this may overall become my most often used set of charts, notbecause it is my "best" or my favorite, but because it is perhaps one ofthe most well thought out and practical set of charts for at thetelescope (or nightstand) table, for ready and convenient reference.