OM-D E-M5 worth it for someone who has an E-5?

When I want a truly portable camera, I have the ZX-1 and LX-5, and I am fairly happy with those. I am here debating my quest for high-quality cameras.

I have an E-5, which I use mostly with my very good copy of a 14-54.  The photos are very very sharp.

I also have an E-PL2, and the best zoom lens I have found for it is the Panasonic 14-45.  The lens is quite good, but the final result does not compare well with what I get from the E-5 with 14-54.  The E-5 + 14-54 images are sharper, quite a bit so.  The E-PL2 with 14-45 are sharp, and I think if I had not seen what the E-5 is capable of with the same pixels, I would have been satisfied, but it's not the same as the E-5.  The E-PL2 is ... sharp enough, with some blur, but it's not clearly superior to the ZX-1 or LX-5.  The E-5, those photos are just transparent with detail, it seems the camera is not there and I can look straight at reality as it was, none of those artifacts of blurring.

And so, this is my dilemma.  I would really like to believe that some of the issues with the E-PL2 are due to the sensor, and that if I were using the OM-D E-M5, I would be getting images that are on par or superior to the E-5.  This would enable me to get the same performance from a much ligher camera.

The other half of me doubts that it is the sensor, and believes that the m4/3 standard zoom lenses are just not up to par with the old 4/3 ones.  I also fear that the resolution of the viewfinder, being the same as the VF-2, is not quite good enough for macro shooting.

Anyone who has had both E-5 and OM-D E-M5 can offer a comparison?

--
Luca