Hello, has anybody upgraded to the Sony RX100M5? Is it worth it? I am taking photos with the Sony RX100M3 because I can't hold heavy cameras. Would I sell more images if I would choose a higher quality camera like the Sony A6300 for example? Is it worth it paying any more money for a new camera? I have only uploaded about 340 images in one year and I really can't do more than that. I edit RAW files but would really love to be able to use JPEGs. Wouldn't that save a lot of editing work?

Hello, has anybody upgraded to the Sony RX100M5? Is it worth it? I am taking photos with the Sony RX100M3 because I can't hold heavy cameras. Would I sell more images if I would choose a higher quality camera like the Sony A6300 for example? Is it worth it paying any more money for a new camera? I have only uploaded about 340 images in one year and I really can't do more than that. I edit RAW files but would really love to be able to use JPEGs. Wouldn't that save a lot of editing work?

I think RX100M5 would be approximatly the same to RX100M3 in terms of photography (I own RX10MII and a6000). A6300 is a nice camera for low light shots, but 340 images in one year is very small amount to talk about any camera upgrades. Try shooting more street editorials with people involved, your little camera is great for them I think. And avoid places with marks of tripod legs, those subjects are probably already well covered with some more expensive equipment.   

I got a discounted RX100M4.  Used the M1 until it broke.  Not sure the MK5 is a huge upgrade and it costs a lot more than the MK4, if you search for a cheap one.  If you don't want to mess around with raw, use jpeg.  I used jpeg for about a year with no problems, lots of people use jpeg for stock.  I also use micro 43 cameras because the lenses are small and lightweight and some of them are great value for money.  The Olympus 25mm f1.8 is the equivalent of a 50mm on a full frame camera that weighs very little and has excellent quality.