sky atlas companion, what's it good for?

I have the sky atlas and am wondering if the companion will be interesting. The listing says it's an alphabetical listing of what is in the atlas, which could be pretty dry.
So, I'd love to hear opinions of why you value it, and when its of use.
Thanks
Dan

Of all the deep sky references, I think Sy Atlas Companion is one of the least well organized. You neveer know when they are goingg to list an item by it's name rather than it's designation. For instance, you're going along alphabetically thru the M objects and thru the NGCs, but when you can't find an object you will need to know if it is a Ki or a Do or Cd or St or has a proper name.

Personally, I find Lginbuhl and Skiff Deep Sky Objects a much better DSO reference.

edz

Dan,
I find the companion invaluable, even if it is a bit dry. It adds a lot of meaning to locating and observing objects. It can help you verify your finds, and gives a small amount of information about each one. The observing session can become more of an educational experience. I, for one, recommend it.
David Vaughn

Yes, it's dry. It isn't a good read, but it's a good reference. I refer to mine quite a bit in the field when I see promising looking targets near to targets I've planned for the evening. A quick look in the Companion gives me an idea of what I'm looking for, and whether it's a realistic find for the evening with my scope.

I like it.

Dan,

If you're not planning to buy the entire Uranometria in the future, the Sky Atlas Companion is worthwhile to have as a reference, IMO, despite its lack of surface brightness figures and other drawbacks.

I bought the original spiral bound version from Bob Strong at the 1995 Stellafane convention, IIRC, and it's come in handy over the years.

Dave Mitsky