No kidding! This will literally kill a lot of people up here! Mostly the elderly. I'll be doing a bunch of 'welfare-visits' around my neighborhood. Invite some older folks over for my a/c and cold drinks.

 

I compared the Orion and Celestron Mars filters in a daylight test. I used a 90mm Orion Maksutov, a 45° Amici prism diagonal and a pair of 32mm Baader BCO Plossls. By switching rapidly between the two Plossls with the filters threaded into them I could get a better feel for any differences between the two filters.The BCO’s gave 39x for a 2.3mm exit pupil. Targets were some trees, chimneys, fields, television aerials and the occasional distant house. The conditions were hot, sunny and bright with a noticeable heat haze. Temperature was 26º Celsius.



Although the glass in these two filters looks ostensibly the same when held up to a light source, there are subtle differences when viewed through a telescope. The Celestron is a slightly lighter magenta colour with a pink hue that the Orion lacks. The Celestron also seems to have a higher transmission rate which reveals more subtle detail than the Orion filter. In this respect the Celestron more closely resembles my TeleVue Planetary Bandmate, which was a development of TeleVue’s own Mars filter. It will be interesting to compare these two filters on Mars. Well, not actually on Mars of course. But that would be fun, although I’d probably have to buy an Earth filter lol.

 

Okay - I've been lining-up this new Celestron Mars Filter alongside my Sirius Optics Mars 2003 Filter, my Orion Mars Filter, My B+W FL-D Filter, and the TIFFEN FL-D Filter. Oh yes! Also the Brandon #30 Magenta. These be my first-takes. No actual telescope-trials, it's been cloudy and spitting rain all day.

The first thing I noticed was it's quite notable similarity to the Sirius Optics Mars 2003 Filter. 2003 was the year of a legendary Mars-Opposition that broke all records since 60,000 years ago! This one is too close to call as yet, what with it's planet-wide Dust-Storm roaring on, but it won't be matched until 2050.

This Celestron is quite obviously more similar to the B+W FL-D Filter. Whereas the Orion Mars Filter has the same shade as the TIFFEN FL-D Filter. These two FL-D filters have been written-up to be what inspired the creation of these Mars-Filters popping-up prior to this years' opposition. The Sirius Optics Mars 2003 came out just before the 2003 opposition and was, according to a Filter-Nut, was indeed inspired by these FL-D's which have been called 'Negative Green' filters as they correct color-balance of people and objects that are bathed in fluorescent-lighting.And green is what fluorescent-lighting injects into pictures. So these FL-D folters were first used for. It'snot uncommon to see photographic-filters migrating into astronomy and astro-photography.

Mars is essentially of two surface-topography areas. One is red-dust from iron-oxide (same thing as the rust on your cars & trucks). And the Maria, basically darker colored rocks and rock-formations which are darker in color. These look a blue-green color. What the FL-D filters do is make this difference more pronounced. Sharper images of these areas contrasting each other. My personal experience is they also let the Polar-Caps more visible as well - though we are at odds as regards if one is actually seeing the ice-caps, or if it's really an area of light, more reflective material that look like ice-caps.

So the proverbial jury is out. If we can get this Dust-Storm over with, maybe we can resolve this dispute? Time will tell.

So the new Celestron Mars Filter is a lighter magenta color and won't dye the Martian disc deep-purple while also increasing the contrasts on Mars. The Orion Mars Filter does dye Mars a deep-purple color. So if you're fan of Deep Purple (the band included, all you Heavy Metal music fans ) - then you might like the Orion Filter. Personally I'll lean toward the Celestron and it's more gentle approach to the magenta coloring.

So this what I've gleaned thus far regards the Celestron Mars Filter. More is bound to follow, unless I'm hit & killed by the Goodyear-Blimp.....

<POIT!>​

 

Yes, that's what I find comparing the Celestron and Orion filters. The Celestron is very similar to the TeleVue Planetary Bandmate, which itself was a development of TeleVue's own Mars filter.

Also, Martian polar ice caps aren't usually visible until several weeks after opposition.

Mars opposition: 28 days away and counting ...

 

I've heard about theTeleVue® BandMate, and the TV - Mars-Filter. The general consensus was they were rather lackluster and much overpriced. But off-the-cuff reviews can put something down for things like:

1.) They dye everything deep-purple.

2.) They DON'T dye everything deep-purple.

Both are accurate for the individual making the report. It's a clear-cut case of; "Your mileage may vary."

Do you have the TV-filters, Mak?

 

I only have the Bandmate. I'm quite impressed with it on Mars.

 

Lucky duck! (*< KWAK!

Me thinks I'll be wandering through Astromart.....

Damnit! I mis-numbered my Master Filter-List! Back to the revision-shop!

<POIT!>​

 

It's a bit like a pink Baader Neodymium on steroids lol.

 

Nice review @Dave In Vermont, very pleasant review to read. I am sold the Celestron filter! it's very available and not too expensive. That's the one I would get for a first Magenta filter.

The next equally impressive opposition in 50 years..? I wonder why the hell I haven’t bought it yet

I could slide a quick question right here considering a limited budget.

To watch mars during the next month, and, considering my planetary arsenal is constituted of HD-OR 7mm (143x), HD-OR 6mm (167x) and ES 4.7 (212x) what would you guys thing would be the very right move:

A. Buying a 5.5 mm to get an important mid point power of 181x, to look at mars. (Perhaps the sweet spot of all my high powers highest quality/highest power)
B. Using my actual eyepieces 143x 167 and 212x to look at Mars and buy a Celestron Mars Filter? (If my 6mm is not a sweet spot at 167x it's very close)

To me both choices are motivating.

 

What 'X' should you try? Note: I said 'try.' As high as the 'seeing' will permit. And never mind the 'Cardinal-Rule' of 50X to 60X / Inch of Aperture Rule.' In fact - throw ALL the 'Rules' in the bin. See what will work for you, your eyes, and your instruments.

In 2003 I didn't get word of the existence of the Sirius Optics' Mars-Filter until waaay late. Mine is Serial-code #7325, and was one of the last ones in the production pre-peak of the opposition. And even though I only could use it for one (magical!) night - before the 2003 Dust-Storm blotted-out the entire planet - but that one night was amazing and well-worth it!

So toss the rule-book in the loo & make notes of what worked for you, what didn't work, and tack-on a narrative of your instrument used - telescope, eyepiece(s) deployed, filters (if any), and any other incidental information.

Make it clear as you can, because.....

YOU'RE NOT WRITING THIS FOR YOURSELF. YOU'RE WRITING FOR THE FUTURE OBSERVER'S IN THE YEAR 2050!
​

Okay? Bombs' Away!

 

What 'X' should you try? Note: I said 'try.' As high as the 'seeing' will permit. And never mind the 'Cardinal-Rule' of 50X to 60X / Inch of Aperture Rule.' In fact - throw ALL the 'Rules' in the bin. See what will work for you, your eyes, and your instruments.

So toss the rule-book in the loo & make notes of what worked for you

Well in 3 years of experience now with the planets and this telescope, I seldom had any good results at 212x (except for the moon) and the new 6mm at 167x revealed new nice features on Jupiter, more blue clouds and even (I believe) a white oval using a dark blue filter.

What I learned is that sometimes, less power can reveal more details, thats my best up to date knowledge.

And the 6mm proved to be better then the 4.7mm on the planets, that's why I am interested in the range between 167x and 212.x

That's one path, the other path is to try the filter with what I already have. Perhaps I could benefit more from the filter then from 181x, that's a nice gamble.

 

The trick is to blot-out all presupposition and start from scratch.

 

You'll want at least 200x for Mars ideally. 250x is better,

 

The planet is at less then 20 degrees elevation, I am skeptical about the odds of having very high results with powers above 212x. Getting a refractor of a maksutov is not an option on the table right now! Not with 120$ budget

And I already have 222x and 280x of power with a double barlowed 7mm or 9mm That's about 35x per inches of aperture.

If it would make you guys happy, me trying higher power, I can do it without buying anything, that's something I can do.

 

With Mars you aren't looking for high definition, so the more magnification the better. Allowing for conditions of course. But 200 minimum is about normal for any scope of 10 centimetres or more.

 

With Mars you aren't looking for high definition

Actually, I was not aware of that lol

 

I'm looking for canals and Little Green Men!

 

I'm looking for canals and Little Green Men!
?

I am looking at not too much.. it must be 25 Celsius outside, 90% humidity, massive light pollution, maximum mosquitoes. it's not dark yet and it's 22:23, the moon is almost full and very low.. I can't see the planets because of the trees..

I give up for tonight...

 

Just took a few Moon-Shots through the clouds - but it was too little Moon and too many clouds. So no-go for tonight here as well.

 

Well, you don't need it really. Unlike Jupiter and Saturn's rings you aren't going to see defined detailed contrast changes. Looking at Mars with a telescope is like looking at the Moon with the naked eye. You'll see surface features but they won't be sharply defined. One exception can be the polar caps. A few weeks after last opposition I used a 12.5mm Astro Hutech orthoscopic in a 2.5x TV Powermate to give 180x. This was the lowest I could realistically go to help see the northern polar cap. I also used a variety of filters, the #82A being particularly good on the polar region.