The main drawback of catadioptric telescopes is their high resultant ƒ ratio. Most SCTs are at or around ƒ/10, and most Maksutov combinations are around ƒ/13. This makes them bad for photography, as a longer exposure is needed to obtain the same amount of light (because light is spread out more—imagine trying to cover a whole wall with just a tiny can of paint, versus having a huge bucket of paint). With today’s CCD and CMOS cameras, though, it’s less of a problem.
In visual use, they will need a shorter eyepiece to achieve the same magnification. Considering many amateur astronomers enjoy viewing nebulae and galaxies, a very-short-focal eyepiece will be needed to make them fit wholly in the field of view—or sometimes, not even wholly. Short-focal-length eyepieces often have shorter eye relief, which means you need to put your eye much closer to the eyepiece than with longer-focal-length eyepieces. This may be difficult or even impossible if you wear glasses for observing. Again, modern eyepieces with short focal lengths and longer eye relief do exist, so it’s less of a problem as it used to be.
I would be hard-pressed to make a choice, though, as each amateur astronomer has their own wants and don’t-wants, dos and do-nots, so it’s really a matter of choice.
I currently do not own a catadioptric telescope (though I have a catadioptric camera lens), but I have owned an 8″ ƒ/10 SCT on a fork mount. I have traded it for a 10″ ƒ/4.7 Newtonian on a Dobson mount, as it suited my needs better. Then again, on the flip side, a friend of mine, who has the exact same 10″ telescope as I have, just got himself an 8″ ƒ/10 SCT, as it’s more easily transportable “for [his] old back.”