Upload & Sell: Off
First, you have to decide which level of corrections you want and which final format is needed. I like to correct my daft framing mistakes, freak colour casts and to isolate interesting bits and pieces. In film days I tried larger formats. The compact Linhof 6x9 was an excellent solution, but still too big, so I went back to 35mm.
When digital came in, I reluctantly shifted to a Kodak SLRC full frame , but have moved to Canon, to get a stop or possibly two over 400 ASA -at the expense of worse colour.
For travel, however, the camera that travels with you has to be small light and possibly unobtrusive, in order to be used. Huge 35 mm Leitz R- glass cannot fit in a pocket. In film days I used both the really small Minoxes and their bigger 35mm brethren as well as the Rollei 35 for travel, not my big guns.
Smaller sensors give VERY much smaller optics. For the time being, I have found that the 4\3ds is a good compromise. Terrible graininess in the shadows if you underexpose, but otherwise, still a bit of freedom to re-frame.
In the early days of 4\3ds I used an old tele Elmarit for long distance shots, and some Kinoptiks destined for 16mm, but of late, i am using the native zooms. They can be carried in a jacket pocket and perform quite well. For darker situations the two Schneider 0,75s are excellent but a bit big. Imagine how large they would have been if for 35mm! The 35\1,6 Docteroptik Tevidon is both tiny and not too dim.
Your choice is between portability and fredom of cropping and transformation. I still use my Olympus P1 for travel. Once the Sony merger is finished and they come out with a no-frills small camera, I may get a more sensitve and higher pixel count sensor. Remember, to human sensory input, the perception of the pixel count only increases by the log. of the number, not by its numeric value. Just like for HiFi power numbers where !watt to 10 Watts is perceived as the same jump as from 10W to 100W. Hence the pixel count race can be taken in your stride.