SCT Vs. Newtonian: Similar performance, so why the price difference???

[Generacy]

I have the opposite problem of PhilSail1's, from this link. He was choosing whether to get rid of his 8" SCT or 8" Newtonian; I'm trying to decide which one to get! After reading the very informative thread on the pros and cons of both, it seemed that the conclusion was that both scopes perform very similarly, albeit with different characteristics, which led to such a difficult decision on which to jettison. Which is fine, makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is, if the performance of both scopes are so similar, why is buying one have such a dissimilar price tag?! I'm looking at $650 for the 8" Newtonian, but an 8" SCT goes for 2-3 times that amount! Now, given, they all come with GoTo, which adds to the price, but still. Given such a close race between the two, it seems to be just a matter of preference, not quality, regarding which one a person chooses. But if one adds to that the factor of price, the Newt seems to be far and away the winner on value.

Or am I possibly missing something here? Is there a good reason to justify a price difference of over 1k between the two scopes that I haven't considered?

For my needs, I'm a newb looking to get into the hobby, potentially with some astrophotography. I know that newts have low back focus which could be a problem, but I've read that a Canon EOS can do prime astrophotography with a SkyView Pro, as evidenced here . I've also heard that the newt is undermounted, but it also doesn't seem to be a problem for the linked photographer. Looks like he added some counterweights.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!