Check out Mars from a decent telescope. It's a blurry tiny yellow circle with very unclear "shadows" on it. They drew it really well. Much more impressive than Orion in fact.

Why is Orion unimpressive? Because the author didn't include visible representations of wavelengths that are outside of the range of human detectability?

the drawing of orion is unimpressive, as it is easily visible and drawable to a similar quality with any telescope or even binoculars if you have clear skies. Spotting any sort of features on mars requires huge magnification incredible steadiness and an ability to track the object. Drawing the details for Mars required magnitudes more ability and far better technology.

For reference, Orion is about 3,600 arcseconds wide [http://spider.seds.org/ngc/revngcic.cgi?NGC1976], whereas Mars is from 4 to 25 [https://web.archive.org/web/20100612092806/http://nssdc.gsfc...] depending on its distance.

The Orion Nebula [0] is appearing relatively large on the sky, about 1° (= 60 arc minutes) wide. This is approximately twice as wide as a full moon appears on the sky. With a telescope, you should easily be able to make out details. It's the white-ish blob in the "vertical" chain of stars in the lower center of this image [1]. The yellow-orange star in the top left is Betelgeuse by the way. It was in the news a while ago because it had dimmed a lot and some people (not astronomers though) were hoping for a supernova. That's a different one from "Tabby's Star" which was also in the news because of unexpected dimming.

Drawing comes with practice by the way.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Orion_co...

Certain elements of the Mars drawing having me looking for an explanation. Maybe it's just artistic license, but other features are so similar to contemporary photos that it makes me think there's a more practical explanation.