Don Glenn: My concern is quality. The MAK telescope design is great and I would use that as a lens without any concern. But...
There is a design shortcut that the cheap mirror lenses like to use that kills sharpness. The design should be corrector-concave mirror-convex mirror, and possible flattening lens/group. The cheap design is corrector-concave mirror-lens-flat mirror-lens-possible flattening lens/group. I have a cheap lens and I disassembled it to see what was wrong with it (bought it used, so I didn't care much).
The lens-flat mirror causes a reflection that kills the sharpness. The lens never seemed to be in focus.
If I knew the design was correct, I would buy one. Currently I look for suspicious element-group counts.
thanks for new knowledge ,I jut knew that reflector lens is MAK(maksutov) design ,+1 for knowledge !!! . and agree with you that MAK is great but you need corrector plate or field flattener to eliminate all sharpness issues (coma , astigmaism ,field curvature,etc)
What about hi-end ccd in Astrography market ? Sony is not good enough to compete with Astrography ccd ,i can't imagine that If there's no Kodak chip for astrography . Importantly all astro-photographers say No to CMOS .
Pasha001: 85% viewfinder coverage? You get what you pay for.
one that has to take in to an account is paralax ,for me OVF on non-SLR camera is a bonus (except x100) . IMO ,if there are tilt/swivel screen ,it would be perfect for street shooting (for someone like me) This clearly show that what fuji will do in the future , can't wait 'til Fuji release its interchangable lens x100.