I have used Camera Control 1 for years; and it is quite good if, at times, a bit flaky (if you lose connectivity for some reason, it can be hard to regain without restarting the camera, and/or the software. I am interested in other ideas. AS I recall it does not include a true bulb capability within the software, so it limits you to 30sec exposures. An idea would be to use VNC or some other desktop sharing app, put the computer in the field with the camera, and the connect to the commuter of the network. Won't be highly responsive, but works. It takes some getting used to how to move the mouse around on the computer from the remote desktop.

You are correct: multiple images with the same settings is generally the best way to go, then stacking images. You are starting a complex hobby, but one where it's easy to get started with good results if you use some good image stacking software. PS is not a good choice. I personally use DeepSky Stacker (free), but there are many; and often they come as part of packages that include a lot of specialized software for post-processing. Keep in mind, the initial stacked image is very unsatisfying, and a good first place to post-process them (after they are stacked) is indeed PS, using Curves and levels to expand that histogram and make some pretty dramatic shots quite easily.

If you are using a tripod (i.e, not using a motorized mount that rotates to compensate for the earth's rotation), take relatively short exposures (3-5 seconds with 100mm lens -- experiment to see what you like: the aim is to reduce star trails); that seems way to short, but if you stack 10 or 20 (or more) of those images, you get good results. And then you start learning about ways to improve that image (eliminate sky glow, eliminate camera heat signatures; take dark images to correct other imperfections; etc. You can go as deep into this hobby as you want, or stay relatively simple).

Enjoy!

Look at the Canon SLRs that have been designed explicitly for astrophotography. They remove the IR filter that is in most cameras.
I personally used a Nikon D5100 for years; but now use a CCD camera that is designed totally for astrophotography and has essentially no other use -- mine is an SBIG ST-8300M, but there are many out there and you can easily chase the "best and latest" of those. But Canon is probably the best place to start. Others will no doubt add more insight into this comment.

Let me add that, of the two dogs, the first one actually works quite well (after fixing the brightness issue) in that the color of the background doorway fits well with the coloring of the dogs jowls. You probably weren't thinking that when you took the shot. I often blur backgrounds and then may brighten, darken,desaturate, etc. the blurred background. This helps remove both a distracting object (a light switch or books on a bookcase or whatnot) and often highlights the subject. On both of these it would have removed some distractions (door frame, etc.) I suspect I overdo it as a technique, frankly. Sometimes I get an image that looks like it was taken in a photographer's studio.

Trying blurring the background (requires careful selection and I use very light "feathering" of the selection a lot (I use PhotoShop). On animals, (almost) always try to focus on the eyes. We as humans (and animals as well) are creatures of the eyes -- doorways to the soul and all that...

But many would be very proud of these shots just the way they are.

I have a D5100 with about 125,000 shutter clicks (not sure how old, but got it when the D5100 was newly released) -- works fine. I haven't yet seen a new model Nikon that would justify the cost for an upgrade (so far I am OK with smaller sensor size, but the full-size is appealing. Trouble is my investment in lenses!).

Some cameras (e.g., my Nikon D5100) include a focus confirmation, that while using the same digital focus technology, work with non-autofocus lenses sort of like autofocus, but without the motor. A bit tricky but I use it a lot for my macro lens which is not autofocus. Works great but is some painful to use.

Be sure it is sturdy enough and stable for your largest telephoto zoom, etc. I have a Nanfrotto (but it has no model number on it) and put 600mm on Nikon and it is great. Have packed it in regular suitcases and put in airplane overhead to Europe, New Zealand, etc. I recommend it.

I own a Nikon D5100, and at least as of now, it does pretty much everything I want although the newer features on later cameras are interesting. My challenging photography areas are flower closeups and astrophotography (including at prime focus through telescopes).
For years I have used Nikon's Camera Control Pro 2, and while sometimes really fussy and often confusing, it provides valuable functionality by letting me use a computer for making settings, using LiveView on a computer, etc. But it requires a computer near the camera and (especially for astrophotography) obnoxious extra cabling.

SO:

Does anyway have any experience with CamRanger for Nikon. It looks like it plugs into the same micro-USB port on the camera as is used with the special micro-USB cable for Camera Control Pro 2, and it looks like it matches the functionality in all regards.
There is a competing (and noticeably less expensive) product to CamRanger (Case Air Wireless Tethering System), that gets generally poorer reviews although I am not really clear why.

I believe these devices only work on Android or iPhone, and not on MAC OS or Windows computers. That is OK I think for my purposes -- maybe even more convenient.

Note: to be clear, these products allow you to control the camera in detail (exposure settings, color balance, image type, time-lapse, etc. and provide Live View), and are not just for transferring images to a device.

Any one with experience and comments about using either of these products?

Thanx.