Great info. First, your comments about our current video just confirm the consensus around here that I'm a bit of a perfectionist.
The perspective is helpful, though, because I've worked pretty hard to get it to where it is. When I've been told in the past that it was going to be several thousand to do better, I had no interest. But now that better is possibly $1000 away (or much less if we sell our current camera), then I think it is worthy of looking at. In the end, if I learn something in the process, it's all worth it. To answer your question, yes, more resolution would be nice, but more in terms of the fact that I feel like the lack of light pushes the camera to it's total limits, instead of leaving some headroom to work with. The picture is noisy to me. The noise is then amplified when it goes through some color corrections, bumps in brightness, and a couple of transcodes in post-production to get it to the web. But even the RAW footage has a sense of "if I could just have a little more light to work with...". I don't know if that makes sense, or if I'm truly just being my own worst critic. May I ask if you took the video full screen??? It makes quite a difference on most web videos, and I always assume that if the player gives that ability, I need to make it look good in full screen. Maybe some others will watch and give feedback on video quality for perspective sake. I'm glad you enjoyed the message!
Though it seems like those calculations work out about right on the above suggested lenses (I like the Nikon route best, mostly because it's less money, but also, like you said, my wife could borrow it if helpful), my new concern is that because the camera is already mounted, with a prime lens like this, I will not be able to zoom at all...right? So in terms of framing the shot, it is what it is, eh? I guess I would just hope I was pretty "lucky" (though, at our church, we don't believe in luck per se).
I guess you are right that a Vimeo account is free and I could just give it a try. DUH!