First off, re: the video -- considering it's compressed and streamed over the internet, it looked OK to me. So be sure to factor in your intended delivery/display method. i.e. are you going to use youtube or are you going to burn your own Blu-Rays or ... ?
Second, to shoot decent video on a hybrid photo/video camera, you could easily spend upwards of $5,000, as well, and you'll still have compromises that you wouldn't have with a dedicated video camera. (e.g. zooming during a shot will have exposure "flicker".)
That said, since your main criteria seems to be detail, when used with the same lens, a hacked Panasonic GH2 will serve you better than a Canon T5i. (Full disclosure: own and shoot video on both a GH2 and T4i.) The trick is going to be finding a GH2 for a decent price since it's been discontinued, but is still quite popular precisely because of the amount of detail it's capable of capturing when hacked. (If you can't find a moderately priced GH2, I might suggest waiting for the Black Magic Pocket Cinema camera
which should be out in July.)
But having said that, note that I said "when used with the same lens". I said that because the lens will probably have a more significant impact on your image than the camera. And most "kit" lenses that are bundled with a camera body are meant as "all around" "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" lenses. So yes, you should be prepared to spend upwards of $1,000 on better--in your case sharper--lenses for whichever camera you buy. (And maybe another $1,000 on audio gear.) (And maybe another $1,000 on (fill) lights.) (And maybe another $1,000 on accessories: tripod/monopod, dolly, glide cam, extra batteries, SD cards, etc.)
Anyway, welcome to the forum - Mark
P.S. re: "this is waaay over exposed and washed out, I am guessing this would be fixed with ISO and aperture shutter speed settings more than anything right?"
Not really. When shooting video, you want to keep your shutter speed at around twice your frame rate. e.g. 1/50 for 24p or 1/125 for 60p. And most lenses have an aperture range in which they are sharpest (most detailed), so you wouldn't want to change the aperture much, either. So in your case, you'd be limited to ISO adjustments. (And other color/exposure adjustments in post. Which brings up another cost: post software and hardware. e.g. Premiere or Final Cut Pro and assorted plug-ins, and a computer.)