how much is too much when investing in a 4/3 system?

After reading Popular Photography's review of the E-M5 I am confident I didn't see much in the way of any image quality over the best of the Panasonic crowd introduced to date, most notably the GX-1. Taking into consideration Panasonic's approach to noise suppression, you get essentially the same output for $448(with evf) less than the E-M5 with the low tier kit lens. Hence, beyond the hype, it comes down to the which body type/controls/shooting experience do you prefer.

Now onto my own query as to how much is too much when investing in a 4/3 system...especially when the tech gains, while great, are readily outclassed by mid-level DSLRs(and don't forget the large-sensored small form camera crowd!). I am in the group of shooters/hobbyists who have migrated to the small form cameras with APS-C sensors or the 1" variety. However, I have owned many a 4/3 camera, starting with EP-1 and GF-1 with at least 5 others in between. Each time I do this I have to keep myself in check with regard to lens collection/expense. Even more so now as lens prices for the best of the best m4/3 readily exceed the cost of the camera body.

For me, one very decent lens to squeeze out the m4/3 body's IQ potential is as far as I can allow myself to go. Hey, I have spent $$$ back when I shot my 5D MkII, I just am not willing to over-invest in m4/3. Other's will no doubt not be self-restrained by my belief that m4/3 is really good when the total price for your 'kit' is relative to its performance when measured against other systems. That said, I am struggling to select that one decent lens for my as yet unopened GX-1 and evf...that I may end up shipping back for the Sony RX-100 that will give me more IQ-as good/better at the lowest ISO settings than my unopened GX-1 with its well reviewed sensor/lens combo.