Hi Charles,
"Analysis paralysis"! I like that one
I'll add my thoughts to Dunk's on a C8.
My first decent scope was a Celestron C5. An excellent instrument. I regret having sold it. Only thing I would say is a 6" scope would run out of puff quickly for deep sky viewing in urban areas. It will still perform very well, but light pollution will stimi the contrast. My C5 was all I needed for the moon and planets from my home, but a C8 became available & I swapped them.
Go bush with a C6, & you've got a kick arse scope. It is highly portable & light weight. Photography with a C6 is very much possible. Though with a family, I would suggest video astronomy over more conventional imaging methods. It gives a liveimage on a screen, and shows details much, much fainter than our eyes can see. As an example, my video scope is a modest little 114mm reflector. With my GSTAR camera I can see the Grus quartet of galaxies that are now invisible to my eyes in my 8" scope where I live here in Sydney. More on video a little later.
I think though that a C6 is limited to only 1.25" eyepieces. This means that the scope will give a narrower true field of view than is possible than if 2" eyepieces were used. As an exsmple, the longest focal length eyepiece that gives a 68º apparent field of view in the 1.25" format is 24mm. In a C6 it will give 62X magnification & a true field of view (TFOV) of 1.1º. The 2" format, this 68º eyepiece comes in at 42mm. In a C8 (a C8 can make use of 2" eyepieces), a 42mm gives 47X magnification & a TFOV of nearly 1.5º.
I mention all this as I'm wanting to give you tangible examples as to why consider a C8 over a C6. It is a little larger than a C6, but its footprint is just about the same.
A C8 photographically is also a more capable instrument. Though Schmidt Cassegrain Telescopes (SCT) inherently have a narrow FOV due to their long focal lengths & a slow f/ratio, this can be overcome by using a focal reducer.
Astrophotography is a complex skill. To get the results that blow our socks off here in IIS takes a lot of time & money. If you've got a family, I'd suggest video as your option. You may find that video is all you may need. To see what video astronomy is capable of doing, have a look at the work of Australia' s own Ken James:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...v=#Post6057527
My passion in astronomy is visual, & l have several scopes for this. Video astronomy I only employ at star parties in the big smoke. It does all I want, & that it's "plug'n'play" for me is even better. It is a shame that video isn't exploited more as I think it is probably the tool that a heck of a lot of amatuer sstronomers would actually find modt useful for imaging purposes.
Something to consider.
Mental.