If you crop the E=PL5 to the same size as the E-PL1 I don't think there is a big difference.

I deleted the post. They didn't look the same on the forum as they do on my computer. It may have been due to the image host (I avoid putting things on Flickr that aren't 'presentation' intentions).

Tripod, self timer, IS off, same position, ISO 200, just different days. Both taken through the glass of a window.
Here's different crops, and they do show it truly:
EPL1


EPL5


It could be I am doing something subconsciously to make the EPL5 look better (this is possible), but this is what I'm seeing.

They should not look the same. Different sensors, noticeably wider exposure range on the newer sensor, different tone mapping to cover the wider exposure range in a 256 step luminance range, they have to look different straight out of camera, and the newer sensor should look better as a result of those differences.

I don't have an E-PL1 and E-PL5 but I do have an E-P3 and an E-M5. I can tell you that the output from those 2 cameras look different for the same reasons that I outlined above.

Something's wrong there. Not that the E-PL5 won't be better mind you, but that's incredibly noisy for ISO 200, even on the E-PL1. It doesn't look particularly in-focus either.

__________________
E-M5 | E-PM2 | mZD 12-50 | ZD 12-60 | P 14-42 X | mZD 40-150 R | PL 25 | mZD 45

I might have missed it from the thread, but I couldn't find the EXIF data for the two shots. You mentioned that the E-PL1 took the shot at ISO 200, while the E-PL5 took it at ISO 2500. Could the shutter speed be too slow on the E-PL1 for this shot at 300mm? The shot definitely looks blurred to me.

A bit off topic, but I just went out to a local camera shop during lunch to check out the E-PL5 as I was seriously contemplating getting one to back up my E-M5. Asked the salesperson to put the Panasonic 7-14 on it to see if it has the same ghastly purple flares and reflections as the E-M5. Sure enough, it's there! What a bummer... It immediately puts my GAS to rest.

Since the tilt screen is a must, IMHO, for a UWA lens like the 7-14, I just hope the GX2 has a tilt/articulate screen so it can serve as my second camera body and make best use of my Panasonic lenses...

Just a heads up that Mr Nakamura of Aki-Asahi told me this morning that he has already produced one of his lovely coverings for the E-PL5 and will be listing it on his website soon.

__________________

Yes, I agree.
As before the EPL1 was a RAW imported into Lighroom.
The EPL5 was a Jpeg imported into Lightroom.
It could be:
a) I didn't handle the RAW very well
b) the EPL5 Jpg handling is correcting the lens much better than what I could in Lightroom with a RAW

I will revisit the EPL1 in Lighroom. However I did at the time as best as I possibly could. The focus was correct. The context of the EPL1 image was that I had newly acquired the 100-300 lens and I wanted to test how much better it was than the 40-150 I had.
The crops are extreme - the whole image from the EPL1 looks fine but I never zoomed in as much as those crops.
What this at least shows to me is that I need to learn how to handle RAWs better, or just switch to using the Jpegs (unless the EPL5 really is just far better).

What's the shutter speed on the EPL1 shot, and what's the speed on the EPL5 shot?

I had them on a tripod with the self timer set to 12 seconds. If you look at the Exif data on Flickr (click the camera name at the top right) you can see all the details.