Worked in the UK media industry for 15 years.
If you've built up something of a prestige with your company / brand that in itself can be a unique selling point. Also if you're doing something like a youtube series a short intro / outro can also reinforce your brand and help people remember it.
There's no point having an elaborately animated studio title at the start of your movie to make it seem bigger then it is (which seems to be what your asking) because all it takes is a quick google to show no ones ever heard of it. I'm all for including a short slate or company logo though.
Note I keep saying SHORT. I've seen countless short films online where the first 40 seconds are company intros theres a minute of film in the middle and the last 30 seconds are another company logo and credits. Just, no. Please stop that indy people.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I could argue the 70D is a better starting camera because of its-state-of-the-art autofocus. Lets let the OP make up their own mind.
Guy, that's fantastic you've found something that works for you. The original posters questions was, "Would a Canon 70D work to start with?"
The answer is "Yes. Yes, it would."
Since the dawn of broadcasting moire has been a factor. Newscasters for example just avoided patterned shirts when reading the news. That's great that technology has solved the 'issue' in some cameras, but that doesn't mean you can't work around it.
For 5 years or so back in the 'naughties' our company shot with a bunch of XL1's/XL2's. We ran a successful business despite those cameras having moire in certain circumstances.
That sucks you had to reshoot the interview you mention at your own cost. For us, that was always part of the interview brief. Don't wear patterned shirts or have the interviewee bring an alternate shirt. Just like you would advise someone shooting against green screen to not wear green. It's one of the first things I learnt at college, along with always unwind an extension cord all the way (it overheats) and never leave a camera lens or viewfinder pointed up outdoors (think burning ants with a magnifying glass).
My point being is that the video / broadcasting industry was around for many years before the release of the Nikon D5200, D5300, D5500, D7100, D7200 and Canon 7D Mk2, 5D Mk3 and their moire free video. It's not that big a deal.
I've shot about 150+ projects with the 70D since I got it when it came out. I very occasionally notice moire. It's not a huge deal and nothing like as bad as in that example video. Cleary, if you intend to present your own videos and only have one fine patterned shirt that's exactly like the guys in the example video - don't get the 70D.
Otherwise, don't get caught up in the 'gear mindset' that I see so many friends fall prey too. It's the talent (i.e. you) not the tools that makes videos watchable. I also shoot with a Panasonic 101, Canon 5Ds, Sony PMW 500, Panasonic GH4s, my companies about to get the Sony FS7K. The all have plus and minus points.
For any of my own projects, fun things, passion work or travel I grab the 70D. It personally suits me perfectly. I'm going to order the 80D this week.
I think we're coming at it from different angles. I was thinking more corporate films and you're clearly thinking more narrative film. I don't think the original poster stand, just suggest shorts? Which I guess could be either?
He mostly asked if better gear made for better films. You're kind of answering the question 'What should a narrative project looking for distribution shoot with" - which is fine. But I imagine most folk paying the bills are shooting corporate stuff - which inevitably ends up on youtube.
I should have probably *asterixed my answer with *anyone working in the business will care. Obviously if your job is working as camera on a film production they will care. Otherwise, not so much.