Yes, and experience is achieved by.....getting experience.
This reasoning is what in formal logic is called a 'hasty generalization'. In this case, citing anecdotal evidence over empirical. Retaining the evidence that supports a proposition, while ignoring that which does not. Count up the solar system or deep sky images posted over the last week. The instruments are overwhelmingly SCT's. Perhaps the SCT requires a little more skill or effort, but certainly not the level implied by 'regretting 6 months of effort'.
Here's my point. People learn better if they're not struggling with a difficult setup. The data shows clearly that beginners find SCTs _very_ difficult to learn on. You didn't like "6 months".
How about a year?
"Of all the recommendations though, if you want to get into imaging then a short imaging refractor is probably the best one (IMHO). I have a C8 and this was the scope I learned AP on. It was a long, tough struggle and I have no good pictures to show for it. I could have easily saved a year by starting with a more image-friendly scope."
How about two years?
"I'm biased as I wasted two years starting out with a C11. After I sold it and bought a 660mm refractor I was up and running 2nd or 3rd night out."
I've got as many of those as you want. One guy was so interested in steering others away from his mistake (it's a common one, the degree of difficulty involved is just not intuitive) that he took the time to make a YouTube video about it.
The SCT is just the wrong tool for the job. It's like trying to learn to build fine furniture while driving nails with a Crescent wrench. You may learn a lot about driving nails with a Crescent wrench, but it won't help you learn to build fine furniture.
Experienced imagers do fine images with SCTs. They're horrible to learn on. Which is my only concern here.
Edited by bobzeq25, 12 August 2020 - 12:58 PM.