Figured I would put together an additional list, which I would call the "Indifferent" list of gear.
Sequence Generator Pro - While it has a bunch of good features in it (like the Framing and Mosaic Wizard) and is not that difficult to bootstrap yourself on, the focusing method used in SGP is not my favorite and leaves a lot to be desired. It has some UX problems with massive popups asking the user things that seem unnecessary, and making changes to some critical settings after the profile has already been loaded, results in this clunky experience where you have to reapply the profile to the sequence, to get settings to take effect as you want them. There are ways around this in the UI, but the whole sense of it being disconnected just frustrates me.
Stellarvue 80mm Triplet - The one I bought had to be sent back for collimation. The available reducer for the scope is likely the worst I have used, but the flattener lens for it works nicely. Its not a bad scope, but I would not call it a great scope either. Hopefully the new SVX line of Refractors from Stellarvue are better. After the collimation update, the scope does work well though. Mine is equipped with a nice 2.5" Feathertouch focuser, which works exceptionally well.
ASI 183MM Pro - Not a bad camera, not a killer camera. It sits in a cool space in-between on its own in their lineup, IMO. For its price, its pretty well equipped for a smaller sensor. Comes with CMOS headaches, but is a bit more forgiving than the ASI1600 is in some calibration cases. It has AR coating on the sensor glass, which is a huge plus. Nice high QE on the camera in the blues and greens. Its massive starburst glow really becomes a challenge to manage at very high gains, which ultimately limits its usefulness. Its basically a CMOS version of a ICX834 camera (like the QSI6120) with even smaller pixels, and thus a much higher overall pixel count/MP. The ICX834 would take it to the woodshed though. All in all, not bad, not great.
Celestron 8" Edge HD - I really wanted to love this scope, and for visual I did love it. Imaging is a challenge in some cases with the 8" Edge, and the reducer lens for it is hit and miss in terms of being able to provide good stars across your image. Preparing the Edge 8" for auto focus is an interesting battle, although using the MoonLite add on focuser to the rear and locking down the mirrors, does provide protection against mirror flop and image shift. It also results in the scope being incredibly imbalanced toward the rear, moreso that it already is, which can be a challenge with some configurations. Motorizing the in-place stock focuser eliminates the use of the mirror locks, and is a bad long term solution for using the Edge 8" as an imaging platform. If the Optec Secondary focuser system would be available for the 8" (the 11" and 14" are the only ones they sell a kit for) then this would likely be a much better imaging platform. All in all though, it is hard to hate the C8. Its an exceptionally good telescope for the price. The SCT's are also brain-dead easy to collimate, in comparison to other systems like Newts and RC's.
Celestron AVX - My copy of the mount was a good one, other than the gears needing to be replaced after owning it for a year. I still had to remesh them pretty frequently to get good performance for imaging, but the AVX I had was not a bad performer. I could get 5 minute guided images with it, that were acceptable, using very light loads in terms of scopes (AT65 mainly). I did try the FSQ106 on it, and I could get about 1-2 mins before it starting having issues. For the price, its not bad, IF you get a good one.
Celestron CGEM - Similar to my experience with the AVX, the CGEM I had did an okay job of imaging out of the box. Team Celestron and a dev named Derek rewrote the entire CGEM firmware though, and after that change was made and I installed the new motor code, the mount worked very well. Its weight and its imaging capacity were just not up to snuff, so I moved onto the A-P 1100 and thus the CGEM was retired and sold. I still think there is a case of "getting a good one" involved with the CGEM. This is also about the original CGEM and not the CGEM II, which I know nothing about in terms of its performance.
QHY Polemaster - While I know a lot of folks revere the Polemaster, in my experience it does a decent job of getting you close enough to image and guide with, it does not get you close enough to do things like record periodic error in PEMPro or building pointing and tracking models in things like APPM or T-Point. PEMPro always reports a good amount of remaining error that needs to be corrected, and I have never had a single Polemaster calibration result in "Excellent" ratings from T-Point in The SkyX Pro. I personally have relegated this to a "Rough Alignment" tool, and in that capacity it works very well.