If you don't have a computer available and need to use your smartphone another option would be to use a micro SD card.
This is assuming you have a phone with a micro SD card slot.
I would purchase a class 10 card that comes with the full size SD card adapter so you can swap it between your camera and phone.
Another issue is data usage. I'm not sure if the Twitter app automatically resizes images. If it does not you can either do it with an app on your phone such as NoCrop or you can shoot in a lower size and/or quality.

The first thing I would check is the SD card. Do you have another one you can test with?

Identifiable Images of Bystanders Extracted from Corneal Reflections.

I figured I would share a publication from a nerdy website I visit since it is relevant to UHH.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083325

First off I would agree with the others with getting a reflex style RDS. However, you may have issues missing your subjects due to parallax errors. After you initially calibrate the sight the errors would occur in elevation depending on how far your subject is. You may find that you are shooting below or above the subject.
A cheap alternative would be a viewfinder magnifier. They are about $25 on amazon and you wouldn't have issues with parallax. But they do stick out a bit further back so it will certainly feel different.
Do you use a tripod or monopod? If those are too cumbersome there is another trick to steady your shots. Take a short 1/4-20 bolt and install it in your tripod mount under the camera. Tie a long piece of string to the bolt that will reach your feet while holding the camera at your shooting position. Finally tie a fender washer to the end of the string and stand on it. They tension on the string will help steady your shots.
If you change your elevation much I could see you losing slack or not being able to lift the camera, to work around this you could splice in a piece of elastic in the middle of the string.

First off will you be shooting with a tripod or through a telescope? Because the T5i is lighter and the 1/2 pound will make a difference on how well your telescope balances and tracks.
I do some astrophotography but use Nikon cameras. I have a D3100 and a D7000 which are close equivalents to the cameras you are deciding between.
I do use my D7000 (compared to 70D) on my telescope but it pushes the stability limit of my scope. If you want an all around camera you can do landscapes and astro I would go with the 70D. I think you would be happier with the features.
As far as milky way shots, the faster the glass the better. Here is a good chart to help you decide on shutter speeds, etc as well as tips from an experienced astrophotographer. It has been shared on this site before.
http://www.davemorrowphotography.com/p/tutorial-shooting-night-sky.html

If any of us hoggers had shot that phantom photo instead of Lik I am pretty sure they would not get $6.5m for it. :lol:

I agree with you completely. :thumbup:

Yes, it's been shot a million times but not with a phantom in it, just like your tree example.

As far as the $6.5m price, which is just nuts, people with money are going to find expensive things to buy. That's just how they roll. I wouldn't say that Lik's photo is 10,000x better than a similar one that sells for $650. People with money tend to want expensive things for satus, ego, whatever, even if they are not really that much better.

I came to this conclusion while walking through a store called Hermes. I didn't bring my suit with me on that trip and thought, heck, I might get a nice suit since I'll be here a while. The first thing I looked at was a pair of slacks for $800.
Eight hundred freaking dollars!
Nothing fancy either, no Bluetooth, lasers, or climate control. Just a plain ol' pair of brown slacks.
Needless to say I did not buy a suit that day.

By that logic of looking at a photograph by the outermost shell and not what is in it; every state park, major natural formations, beautiful cities, bridges, sunsets/rises, moon shots, flowers, wildlife, water, etc. could be considered clichéd since those subjects are a dime a dozen. Doesn't leave much room for originality aside from maybe abstract.
Take Mount McKinley for example, I would guess millions of photos have been taken of that. Ansel Adams famous photo could be considered clichéd if it were put up next to other photos of the same mountain. But if you say "that one was taken by Ansel Adams" it changes everything and would no longer be written off as a cliché.
Don't take what I just said as a knock against Ansel Adams, my point is a name does make a difference and we also value those who did it first more than those who've done it later, even if the later photo is superior.
Doesn't leave much hope for us photographers living today if people look at the most basic part of a photo and not what is inside of it.

I'll say it again but be more verbose this time. Just because this is a photograph taken at Antelope Canyon does not make it clichéd. The subject is NOT Antelope Canyon, it is the HUGE freaking humanoid phantom in the sun beam. That is what sets his photo apart from the rest.

What Lik's picture has that the others do not is the phantom in the sun beam. Oh, and his name goes a long way too I suppose.

Wow, people would really ask you that? That's kind of rude I think.

I've walked through one of his galleries and I must say his photos are amazing but they are definitely not priced for everyone.

I'm tempted to get this and not just for my camera. :twisted:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/ed42/#tabs