Just as there is no "best" camera or "best" lens ... there is no "best" telescope -- there are merely telescopes better suited to certain tasks than others.
While you can certainly attach a camera, point a telescope toward a planet, and capture an image, the quality of that image will depend on quite a few other factors (some of which are beyond your control).
Atmospheric Seeing Conditions
Due to the very tiny apparent size of another planet as seen from Earth, image quality is very sensitive to atmospheric stability here on Earth. Astronomers refer to this as "seeing conditions". The analogy I prefer to use is to imagine a coin resting on the bottom of a pool of clear water. If the water is still you can see the coin. If someone starts creating waves (either small ripples or large waves) the view of the coin will begin to distort and wobble. This same issue happens with our atmosphere when viewing the planets.
To get a stable atmosphere you want to make sure you are not within a couple hundred miles of either the jet-stream, a warm-front, or a cold-front. You also want to be located in some place where the geography is flat (and preferably water) to allow for smooth laminar airflow. Hot land will create thermals ... so cool land (high up in mountains) or looking over cool water will be helpful. Also the optical surfaces of the telescope should have time to adapt to ambient temperatures. Otherwise the image won't be steady ... it will wobble and distort image quality.
There is also a question of magnification and there's a bit of science to this ... based on Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem.
A telescope will be limited in it's resolving power based on aperture size. The camera sensor has pixels and these also have a size. The short-version of the sampling theorem is that the sensor needs to have double the resolution of the maximum resolving power that the telescope can offer. Another way to think of it is that based on the wave nature of light, a "point" of light actually focuses to something called an Airy Disk. The camera sensor pixel size should be 1/2 of the diameter of the Airy Disk. You would use some form of image magnification (such as eyepiece projection or barlow lens (preferably a tele-centric barlow) to reach that desired image scale.
This sampling theorem helps you make the best of the data your scope is able to capture without under-sampling (losing information) or over-sampling (wasting pixels that aren't actually able to resolve any more detail.)
I'll pick on a camera & telescope combination as an example.
The ZWO ASI290MC is a popular planetary imaging camera. It has 2.9µm pixels.
The formula is:
f/D ≥ 3.44 x p
f = focal length of the instrument (in mm)
D = Diameter of the instrument (also in mm to keep the units the same)
p = pixel pitch in µm.
Basically f/D is the focal ratio of the telescope -- if that's an easier way to think about it. This formula says the focal ratio of your instrument needs to be greater-than or equal-to the pixel pitch of your camera sensor (as measured in microns) multiplied by the constant 3.44.
If you plug in the numbers for the 14" f/10 telescope using the camera with 2.9µm pixels, you get:
3556/356 ≥ 3.44 x 2.9
Which reduces to:
10 ≥ 9.976
Ok, so this works because 10 is greater than or equal to 9.976. So this would probably be an ok combination.
It turns out my actual imaging camera doesn't have 2.9µm pixels... it has 5.86µm pixels. When I plug in those numbers
3556/356 ≥ 3.44 x 5.86
10 ≥ 20.158
That's no good... this means I need to magnify the image scale on the telescope. If I used a 2x barlow here, that doubles the focal length and focal ratio ... bringing it up to 20 ≥ 20.158. If I don't worry too much about the ".158" then I this works. But remember the symbol between the left and right sides is ≥ ... which means I could go higher. If I were to use a 2.5x barlow then it increase the focal ratio to f/25 and since 25 ≥ 20.158 this is still a valid combination.
If you use an APS-C camera (suppose you use one of the many Canon models with the 18MP sensor ... such as T2i, T3i, 60D 7D, etc. etc.) the pixel size is 4.3µm.
Suppose you use a smaller scope such as a 6" SCT. That's 150mm aperture and 1500mm focal length (f/10)
1500 / 150 ≥ 3.44 x 4.3
That works out to
10 ≥ 14.792
That's not quite enough ... you would get better results by using a 1.5x or stronger barlow.
Lucky Imaging (Using Video Frames)
BUT... before you run out and buy barlow lenses (and ideally... tele-centric barlows such as TeleVue PowerMate) it's probably better to consider a different camera and avoid using an traditional camera with APS-C sensor.
The planet is tiny. It will occupy only a very small spot on the center of the camera. So most of the sensor size is wasted.
But what's more ... getting ideal atmospheric conditions is a bit like winning the lottery. It isn't that it never happens... but it sure doesn't happen very often. Depending on where you live, it may be extremely rare. Of course if you happen to be high in the Atacama Desert ... this may be your every-day weather.
Most planetary imagers don't grab single images. Instead they grab about 30 seconds worth of video frames. They don't actually use all the frames ... they just grab a small percentage of the best frames and these are used for stacking. The technique is sometimes referred to as "lucky imaging" because you end up rejecting most of the bad data ... but for fractional moments of time you get a couple of clear frames.
DSLRs that can record video typically use a compressed video technique that is lossy. That's no good when you just want a few good frames. You need full non-lossy frames (preferably RAW video data ... such as .SER format). For this to work, you'd want a camera with a fairly fast video frame-rate. Cameras that can do video via a global electronic shutter are ideal ... but also a bit more expensive.
Before I continue... an important note: I will use specific camera models as examples. The ZWO ASI290MC is a very popular camera for planetary image at the time of this writing. It is likely that next year or the following year ... it'll be something else. Please don't take-away the message that you need to buy camera make/model _____. Instead take-away the ideas of how to work out the important features that make a camera better suited for planetary imaging.
The ASI120MC-S is a budget camera and able to capture frames at 60fps. It has a pixel size of 3.75µm. 3.44 x 3.75 = 12.9 ... so you'd want a scope with a focal ratio at or better than f/13.
This is what makes the ASI290MC such a good choice ... it has a capture rate of 170fps (assuming your USB bus and storage on the computer can keep up) and a small pixel pitch of just 2.9µm (3.44 x 2.9 = 9.976 so it works well at f/10)
Having captured the frames (and for Jupiter you want to keep it down to around 30 seconds worth of frames) you need to process the frames. The frames are typically "stacked" using software such as AutoStakkert. The output of that is typically brought into software that can enhance the image via wavelets such as Registax (btw, AutoStakkert and Registax are both free applications. There are also commercial apps that can do this as well.)
This is beyond the scope of the answer. There are numerous tutorials in how to process the data (and this becomes a bit subjective -- which isn't really the purpose of Stack Exchange.)