Thank you for the great feedback and discussion, it is definitely some good food for thought. I am in no rush to switch, but have been considering available options for a long time and have commented on countless threads where others have had these same questions. I thought this thread would be a good opportunity to dive deeper. Please pardon the long post! These are my main reasons for switching to full frame. I did not want to sideline the main discussion on the merits of this rationale, but figured it would help with the conversation. Shallower depth of field: This would be immensely beneficial for cluttered indoor spaces where I want to hide the background, as well as location shoots where I may not be able to find a clean background. This is just not possible on DX. For example, to get the same field of view and depth of field of an 85mm f/1.8 lens on a full frame body, I’d need a 50mm f/.95, which doesn’t exist. Better working distances: I like to shoot headshots with an 85mm, full body shots at 50mm, and smaller group shots as wide as 35mm. At home I have about 24’ of space to work with, but as soon as I go on location, I rarely have this much room. That means I am now taking headshots at 50mm, full body shots end up being 35mm or wider. Any group shots are often at the wider end of my 17-55, and often require some lens corrections in post. Better lens options: Nikon never fully built out their DX lens range as much as I would have liked. I love my 17-55, but it’s not nearly as sharp as a 24-70, especially in the long end. I have a Tokina 11-16, but it’s not even in the same ballpark as a Nikon 14-24. And I have almost purchased a 70-200 several times, but 70mm is just too long to be practical for things like indoor sports. The big catch for me is autofocus performance. I am currently using a D500, and it really doesn't get better than that for autofocus. It's the same AF system in the D5 and D850. It's better than the D780 without switching to live view. And it is better than any of the used offerings worth considering. Almost anything else non-mirrorless would be a downgrade in AF performance, and I know this going in. What I really want doesn't exist; a full frame D500, without the higher resolution of the D850. Some additional comments: @JBPhotog: I agree for the most part, but would want to consider a longer-term strategy as well, not just something to tide me over. I question whether it makes more sense to buy a used F-mount 24-70, or spend twice as much on a new Z-mount version, which ironically is almost the same size and weight (why are we moving to mirrorless again?) @smoke665: I definitely agreed with the cost of full frame or Z-mount lenses. At least with Nikon's F-mount, there’s a great used market if I don’t need the latest versions. Z-mount will inevitably be more expensive than new F-mount, and with no used market for a long time. @Strodav: I have considered this as well - Nikon isn't doing so well financially, and they are trailing other manufacturers in mirrorless performance. Other brands certainly look appealing, but Canon and Sony have much steeper price tags to get into their mirrorless systems. @Quassaw: Thank you, this is exactly the information I was looking for. Unless I want to pickup a D850, mirrorless seems to be the best option without sacrificing AF capabilities, and you nailed the 2 use cases I would be looking at. I’m still not sold on mirrorless, but am pretty intrigued by EyeAF and better 3D tracking. @mjcmt: Thanks! For the price (at least a few months ago) it almost seemed like a no-brainer, but I was hesitant to give up my D500 for an older body with lesser AF capabilities. I agree about lens size - I never really understood the point of a smaller body with the same large glass, and mirrorless lenses seem to be getting bigger, not smaller (look at some of Sigma’s recent offerings). @ac12: Excellent points about there being a growing second hand market for F-mount lenses. Of course this means treating lens purchases as a sunk cost with no real expectation for decent resale value. @Derrel: While the lenses might have longevity, I'll probably want a new body in less than 10 years, and by then I'll need to either re-buy Z-mount versions or use them adapted. It’s really hard to tell if mirrorless is really the future, or if it’s mostly marketing hype, amplified by review sites and youtube personalities. It definitely seems like F-mount development has slowed though. For example, I have my doubts whether Nikon will ever update their 50mm f/1.4 for F-mount when they have yet to come out with one for Z-mount. It really feels like we’re in a 3-5 year purgatory for camera technology. @Destin: I'm glad you chimed in, as I remember you being a D500 user for a while. I think we shoot pretty different things, so size and weight aren’t my main concerns. Of course I question how much utility I’ll get for these cases I mentioned above, and whether it’s really worth the cost and effort.