What does $2000 more get me with the RX1 that I don't get with the EPL5?

I have read other comparisons of the RX1 to the M9 with  various lenses but that is a false comparison since the M9 is capable of taking many other lenses while the RX1 is not. In my opinion it cannot be compared to an interchangeable FF camera of any make since it does not possess that feature. Okay, its IQ and its DR is as good as the M9 and better than the EPL5. But by an appreciable margin?  And at $2700, is the "photographic enthusiast" its intended market? Or is it only the wealthy photographic enthusiast.

I have also read the comparison of the zeiss lens which, alone, would cost some astronomical amount which then brings down the relative cost of the RX1 because look at what a great lens you are getting. Again, false comparison because with the RX1 it is the only lens you are getting. If I spent $2000+ on a zeiss lens I damn well better be able to use it on something other than a fixed lens camera with no viewfinder. Again, at $2700, what is the intended market?

What I am driving at is what more do I get for the extra $2000 that I am not getting with the EPL5?  Or is this one of those "you can catch as many trout with a $25 rod as you can with a $2500 rod" type of  products? I think it must be. Like one of the posters said, it is a fine camera for the vanity market.

But I am not even convinced the RX1 fits easily into the $2500 fishing  rod category given its limitations. I could see spending the money it takes to have a Leica rangefinder system. In fact, I have done that in the past and I was very happy with the images I produced and not once did I think I spent way too much for what I got. Regarding the RX1, I can't imagine not thinking that.