BJL,
If you tried using a 5D for a few days and saw first hand just how good images can be at ISO 3200, I think you might change your mind.
I get the impression you have opted for the Olymous 4/3rds system primarily because of your interest in and knowledge of optics. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder how your opinion would be affected by experience with a Nikon D2X, or even a D200? (Compared at ISO 1600 with one f-stop difference to get equal speed and DOF of course!)
Likely my reaction to any of the three would be "Wow! I see very little reason for me to get a camera and lenses any bigger, heavier or more expensive than this." Unless I ran into ergonomic problems like excessive weight or others not revealed by the spec's, lab. measurements, and sample shots. Because I am not a "maximalist" about image quality, especially not about high shutter speed/low light image quality; I am a balancer of factors, including ergonomics and cost.
My reasons for getting the E-1 and 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 (recently joined by a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5) were actually far simpler and more pragmatic.
In my price range and for my core needs, such as convenient standard and telephoto zoom lenses, it was the best option at that time. Runner up was a Nikon D70 or D100 with 18-70 f/3.5-4/5 DX, but reviews suggested that the optical quality of that lens was not as good as the 14-54. At the time, before EF-S, Canon's best option for my budget was the D60, which did not have a convenient standard zoom (I would have made do with the 17-40 f/4) nor a convenient telephoto zoom to pair with that 17-40. I am still on the same camera (while you have changed twice in the meantime?), so it is a good thing I did not buy the D60 to use with my old Canon gear in the hope of Canon later providing lenses for the D60 adapted to the smaller image circle. A good thing too that I did not decide to stay with film until 24x36mm reached my price range, or I would still be waiting with no relief in sight.
It is not clear what I would choose from today's options, but the Nikon D200 is probably the leading contender, or the E-500 if I were willing to take a stop-gap solution. Given my interest in telephoto reach and macro photography, good sensor resolution in the sense of lp/mm would be a major factor, so my choice would not be a camera like the 5D, even at far less than its current price. With only 3/4's the sensor resolution of the D200 or 2/3's that of the bargain basement E-500, a 5D would require considerably longer telephoto lenses and higher magnification macro gear to get equally detailed images of distant or small subjects, blowing my weight and cost limits.
But I am sure it suits you needs well, as I roughly agree with Phil Askey nuanced final recommendation:
"Highly Recommended ... to anyone looking for the 'purity' of full frame (and a Canon mount) the EOS 5D would be absolutely Highly Recommended. ... For everyone else however it's a hard decision ... only history will tell if the EOS 5D is the start of a full frame revolution or simply the first of a new niche format."
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page32.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page32.asp[/url]
And as an ex-pat I am of course glad to hear that Australian customers are not being gouged as much as they often are on camera prices compared to US prices.
Congratulations!