While you would be able to Striker, you would probably need a tracking mount. One of the things that separates a telescope from a camera is that a telescope has a huge aperture compared to a camera, so it can much more effectively gather light. My telescope has a 130mm primary mirror, and while some of that is lost due to the secondary mirror
being in the way, it still has a much larger area to gather light. If you wanted to take a picture with just a camera you would probably need to do a long exposure shot, and because the earth is constantly rotating you would need a tracking mount.
A possible alternative to a tracking mount is actually a telescope. The one I have has a tripod mounting screw on the top, as well as a motorised drive which compensates for the planet's rotation. It's a bit fiddly, you have to adjust the telescope mount so that it's parallel to the earth's axis of rotation, and then set the speed of the motor drive. But when you've done that, the whole thing functions as a tracking mount. I think mine retails for somewhere around $250 US, so it's a bit cheaper.
I've never done that myself, as most of the time I'd be lucky enough to even have enough clear sky time to even set up the mount properly, never mind the motor drive or a long exposure shot. The camera mount I want to get mounts the camera directly over the eyepiece and uses the entire telescope as a zoom lens, but unfortunately it is a bit expensive for me to get at the moment.
Also, they are very nice Boomer. How did you get a photo of the nebula? Those are usually really