And what I care about is how much more detail I can get with imaging. My location generally has poor to bad seeing, so I will never 'see' visually what I can get with 'lucky imaging'. Not only do you need collimation and acclimation, but if you don't have excellent seeing when you "plunk it down," you will never get the views of detail on Mars and Jupiter you expect. If you're ignorant of these factors you will call it a 'bad scope, as some have claimed here. So round and round this thread goes, with so much subjective preference with no point or conclusion possible.
Yes, you can download images all you want, some of us prefer to try and make them and hope you like them. And seeing is still by far the biggest limitation to producing good images, cause imagers already know that collimation and acclimation is critical but under your control. It still amazes me how few of these 'naysayers' seem to follow any of the imaging and images posted every day, day after day on the planetary imaging forum.
As professional astronomers have known for over a hundred years, images and data are the only objective form of making critical observations and discoveries or determining quality of an instrument in astronomy. They gave up doing visual in the early 20th century. Of course that shouldn't take away your preferred enjoyment of looking through a telescope, but its not going to settle any question of quality.
Everyone should know what to expect from the seeing conditions where they observe. Someone who lives under the jet stream should not expect good seeing. They should probably get into deep sky instead of planet/lunar. Luckily, where I live is not always under the jet stream. My location has poor to excellent seeing, depending on the season. From late Spring to late Fall I can experience many nights of good seeing, some nights of excellent seeing. But from about Thanksgiving to Easter, I have better luck sticking to deep sky.
Some observers want to actually observe, rather than spend all their potential observing time trying to take pictures. Observing is everything to me. If I can't see it with my own eyes at the telescope, I'm not really interested.
I'm not a professional astronomer, I don't intend to be and I don't want to play at being one. I'm an amateur astronomer who likes to observe the object my telescope is pointed at, not look at it later in a picture.
But to each their own. As long as the imagers don't ruin my dark site with white light, let them take all the pictures they want.