Yet another "which dslr camera?"

[jacksdad]

Right, so I've been looking for a 'new' (to me) dslr, to use for general photography and astro. It'll get used for general stuff more, but astro capability is important.

 

Canon only really - I like them...

 

I think I've got it down to between the 1100d and the 500d which I believe are the best around budget - budget is roughly £100ish (which can be body only). I'd be happy enough with either for general purpose, but if one outshines the other in astro then that'd be the decision maker.

 

The 500d is slightly higher resolution (still and video), but the 1100d seems to have a good astro rep.

 

So:

500d

1100d

A better choice around the same price?

[david_taurus83]

They can be used for astro work as they are but to really make them shine then the common modification is to remove the infrared filter from in front of the sensor which makes it more sensitive to the red hydrogen alpha spectrum emitted from certain nebula, Orion for example. This can be done for free by yourself if you know what your doing, there are YouTube videos covering this. Or, you could buy the camera with the filter already removed. Though this is likely to be outside your budget. The flip side to this modification is it also means it's more sensitive to IR during daylight terrestrial use. Have a read of the info at the below website.

 

http://cheapastrophotography.vpweb.co.uk/

[jacksdad]

I know they can be used as-is (which if I'm honest is what'll happen), but does one have something inherent that makes it that bit better?

 

My 350d (or pentax k100d) can be used (although lack of live view combined with mirror flip is a pain) and if it weren't for those two things I'd carry on with that.

 

I don't want modded because it makes general use hassle (the 350 might get it's glass ripped out, and I have a compact I defiltered for playing with). 

Edit to add: the 3rd party modding takes it well out of budget right now, but I'd consider replacing the filter myself in future...

 

Either would be a big step up in function from the 350, but which has the larger step? If it were just general use I'd go for the 500 (higher res, better video)...

[RolandKol]

 

if £100 only, - no difference at all... take the first you find for such a price... You will not feel much difference at the start...

P.S.

I managed to get new 1300D for £240 with a default lens almost 2 years ago.

Noisy... but good all-around entry-level camera, with WIFI to Smartphone (but not the PC) connection and etc... If 500D has Wifi to PC, - I would take it as I make pics from the back garden. 

[jacksdad]

Well, I rethinked...

 

Decided on a 600d as a 'new' daily camera because there's lots it'll do better than either of the two in the OP.

 

Now I've decided also to save my pocket money up again and get a cheap 1100d body later in the year as well and dedicate it to astro use, I can strip out the filter myself easily enough and not have to bother about focus issues as it'll be purely live view usage.

 

I don't think I'll be missing out on much, starting imaging on warm, short, light nights will probably only frustrate me anyway...