Post-processing, to a greater or lesser extent, isn't really optional with deep space imaging, it's a necessity. Long exposure astrophotography introduces thermal noise with uncooled cameras such as DSLRs and a common technique to deal with that is by stacking many sub exposures before further post-processing to bring out fine and faint detail and colours. But processing will only get you so far...you need good data in the first place or else garbage in, garbage out!
But....planetary imaging and deep space imaging are quite different and have different requirements. With planetary imaging, gone is the absolutely necessity for an equatorial mount, as field rotation is negligible at the frame rates desirable to capture the subject in often fluctuating seeing conditions. So fast frame rates are better here, for example 30-60 fps or even higher.
Visually, the Cassini division isn't a major challenge for a smallish telescope, it all depends on how good the seeing is (seeing is the stability of the atmospheric layers that affect the ability to see details, or just a blur). Typically, we can effectively observe planets from the city and with the Moon in the sky (although cities can introduce localised negative effects such as buildings radiating heat that can spoil the party). This is the opposite of hunting for faint fuzzies, when we want a dark site with a Moon-less and transparent sky. Transparency comes from drier air in the atmosphere, giving rise to greater clarity and contrast. It's often said that seeing and transparency are exclusive
with a good night having one or the other, rarely both.