Now that I'm back I can add a few more comments...
"wide field" shots are definitely easier to shoot than narrow field shots.
"bright" objects are definitely easier than dim ("faint fuzzies" as we often call them.) objects.
Add that up and high-magnification, narrow-field, dim objects are REALLY hard. But bright wide-field images are really easy. There is a continuum from easy to very very very (you'll lose all your hair learning this) level of difficulty.
Obviously we suggest you start with the "easy" stuff first and work your way up.
A camera on a non-stationary tripod can shoot wide-field images but it helps to have a wide-angle lens... the wider the better. Also you want dark skies... WELL AWAY from any cities or towns, and also you want to do this on clear MOONLESS nights (check your calendar for the "new moon" or nights which are reasonably near the new moon. On those nights the moon is technically up during the daytime ... not at night.)
Assuming a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor (the vast majority) use "400" as a baseline value and divide this by the focal length of your lens. The result is the number of seconds that the camera can safely image the sky and NOT have stars beginning to elongate (growing a tail because of the rotation of the Earth.) E.g. if you have a 10mm ultra-wide angle lens then it's 400 ÷ 10 = 40 seconds. Now suppose you have a 200mm telephoto lens... with that it's 400 ÷ 200 = 2 seconds... anything longer than 2 seconds and the stars already start growing "tails"... so you can see why a nice wide-angle lens buys you more time.
Taking a photograph of the moon through a telescope is also fairly easy although you'll need a piece of equipment to to mount the camera to the scope.
Chiefly you'll need:
(1) a "T-Ring" designed to mount to YOUR camera type. e.g. for your Nikon you'll need a T-Ring designed for Nikons. It's a simple ring that has the Nikon style bayonet mount on the camera-facing side and industry-standard "t-threads" on the telescope facing side.
(2) a camera "nose piece". This is either a 1.25" or 2" barrel (the exact same barrel size as a 1.25" or 2" diameter telescope eyepiece) but it has an industry standard t-thread. You thread the "nose piece" and T-Ring together. With this attached to your camera, the camera can now be inserted into the telescope just like an eyepiece.
Here are some links so you get the idea:
Amazon.com : Celestron 93402 T-Ring for Nikon Camera Attachment : Celestron Adapter : Camera & Photo
Amazon.com : Celestron 93625 Universal 1.25-inch Camera T-Adapter : Telescope Photo Adapters : Camera & Photo
Those two devices together are still only around $20. Any Canon shooters reading this would need to substitute the T-ring for Nikon with a T-ring for Canon EOS.
ALSO... the 1.25" nosepiece is ok for APS-C size sensor cameras, but if you shoot with a full-frame DSLR you may have an issue with vignetting in the corners of the frame and may need to use a 2" diameter nosepiece (and of course you'd need a scope that can accept 2" diameter eyepieces.)
Not all telescopes are suitable for imaging. Many newtonian reflectors don't have enough focus travel in order to allow the camera to come to focus. The sensor plane is far back inside the camera so usually you have to rack the focuser in and you eventually may hit a point where the focus is in as far as it can go but the imaging was only beginning to come to focus... you'd need a few more millimeters of travel. This is generally never a problem for any refractor style scope nor for catadioptric telescopes (Schmidt Cassegrain scopes or Maksutov Cassegrain scopes).
When shooting through a telescope, the moon is your easiest object and looks best near the 1st or 3rd quarters although the 1st quarter moon is up right after sunset while you've got to get up in the early pre-dawn hours to shoot the 3rd quarter moon (so my vote is for shooting 1st quarter moon so I can sleep in.) This is because the sun is lighting the moon from the sides so you get excellent highlight/shadow details on the mountains. If you shoot at or near the full moon the moon is lit with the sun "at your back" and you don't see any shadows... the moon looks flat and 2D.
The exposure for the moon could be the same as the exposure for the day... the "Sunny 16" exposure (f/16 and set the shutter speed to the inverse of the ISO). But there's a problem... the moon has EXTREMELY low surface albedo (reflectivity). It's about as reflective as a black sidewall tire or freshly laid asphalt road. So we open up one stop and they call it the "Loony 11" rule. It says you can use f/11 and then set the shutter to the inverse of your ISO speed (e.g. at ISO 100 use 1/100th sec. At ISO 200 use 1/200th sec.) and you'll nail the moon every time. When shooting through a telescope however, you don't have an adjustable aperture and that means you'll need to look at the telescope specs to get the focal ratio. I have an f/5.6 scope (560mm with a 101mm aperture) so that's 2 stops open from f/11 that that means I need to speed up my shutter by 2 stops to compensate. But I can also shoot through a 2x barlow (I use a 2x Televeue Powermate) and that takes my scope up to f/11 natively.
...
And then there's the "hard" stuff.
Here's one of my attempts to image the Dumbbell Nebula (Messier 27)
To get this image, my camera is connected to a telescope (which in this case happened to be a 14" Celestron C14 -- an f/11 telescope) and my camera took 16 images of the object. Each image was 4 minutes long. So that's a bit over an hour's worth of data.
But there's a catch... I use a modified camera designed for astrophotography. It's about 5 times more sensitive to Ha light than a conventional camera. To gather this same data with a convention camera I'd have needed to shoot 20 minute long exposures (everything you see in "red" in this image is in the Ha wavelength.). So that's a bit over 5 hours worth of imaging just to collect the data.
The "data" that comes out of the camera looks like mud. It needs a lot of work to process it. It also needs "flat frames" to compensate for the vignetting of the telescope (illumination is never even and while it normally doesn't look bad, when you do astro-imaging you'll do a lot of "stretching" of the data to bring out the detail you want. When you do that you will MASSIVELY amplify the uneven lighting of the field. The "flat" frames are taken so that the computer can adjust to create even lighting across the frame.
And then there's the "dark" frames. The "light" frames generate a lot of "noise". The computer can process that noise out (not completely... but it can knock it back quite a bit). This is, in part, why you need so many "light" frames. The ability to knock the noise back is the square root of the number of "light" frames that you shot. So if you shoot 16 frames you can knock the noise back by a factor of 4x. But you also get "pattern" noise and to knock that back you need to shoot "dark" frames. Those frames are taken at the same physical temperature as the "light" frames, but you keep the camera covered so no light can enter. The "rule of thumb" says you should take at least half as many "dark" frames as the number of "light" frames. The "dark" frames do need to be at the same temperature, ISO setting, and exposure duration as your "light" frames.
Through all of this, the Earth is spinning and that's going to ruin your images. So you need a mount that can "track" the movement of the Earth as we spin... it needs to be a GOOD MOUNT (no being cheap on this purchase.) I consider about $800 to be rock-bottom pricing for a tracking mount and frankly while people "make it work", it's better if you can spend more. I went through three mounts before I found one that I really liked (a Losmandy G11 mount with a Gemini II computer to control it.)
With all of that you'll still need some magic to process the image. This is a skill that can take years to learn (and frankly, I'm not that good at it.)
Oh... and this is one of the EASIER deep-space objects to shoot. Many of them are much more difficult.