What situations are APS-C camera better to have than Full frame?

You hear often about moving to full frame, full frame, full frame.  

So are there shooting conditions when a APS-C sensor camera would be better to have?  

No.

Actually, when the crop sensor body can perform better in certain situations than a full frame. One example, for the Nikon D500, would be sports photography: long lens, fast frames per second. At 10 fps, it shoots faster than almost all of the other bodies, full or crop.

I find my D750, and 6.5 fps, just fine, thank you. If I really needed many fps, I'd go for a D5.

My crop cams are used with macro & super tele shooting...Everything else, I use my fX

Photographically no.  Physically yes.  I moved to an APS-c mirrorless system a couple of years ago because I could no longer carry all that bigger heavier gear.  So for me it is the difference between having a camera with me or not.

In terms of image quality, a larger sensor will always have benefits over a smaller one.  That difference might be important or not but there is no question about the truth of it.

I used to think astro photography, but learned that I was wrong.  Go full frame.  

When you have a limited budget 

Generally, APSC is better for sports, action and wildlife due to a narrower field of view and some have higher frame rates but the advantage is sometimes offset by full frames ability to perform better in low light. It's more of a choice between specific models and not just APSC vs full frame. 

G'day mate

This Q has been around for decades .... I can remember when users with 6 x 6cm roll film Rolliflex cameras were decrying 35mm film users, saying 'that 35mm film being so much smaller than 6x6 cannot give the quality results of the 6x6". And the 35mm people responded with 'who cares - the 35mm cameras out perform 6x6 due to the more versatile lenses" - and so it went on

Today we have cameras whose sensors & performance out-perform anything from those days - and with 15+ yrs of APS camera / lens design experience behind them, todays makers of APS stuff have got it well settled & for our benefit

When I look at many of today's cameras, they are too big & heavy for my liking - and FF will be worse. If you have your own sherpa to help carry your stuff, maybe go for it .... if you've got to do it yourself - then stick with what you can carry easily

Hope this helps
Phil from the great land Downunder
www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

This is actually a technical question requiring a technical answer. I'm shooting Pentax K-1 and a Pentax K-3 (APS-c)  So when do I take my K-3 instead fo my K-1 (FF)?

You'll find many saying the FF uses more light. That's not completely true.
To get the same Depth of Field you have to stop down one more stop. So, essentially that means increasing your FF by one stop to maintain DoF, shutter speed and the one stop different aperture. So the FF theoretically has one stop superior noise handling but you have to shoot one stop higher ISO to take the same image. That cuts the time in the FF exposure in half. So you get twice the light input with the FF but on the sensor half the intensity because of the reduced aperture, to take the same photograph. Many FF proponents make their case by ignoring depth of filed, which is in essence taking different picture.

When shooting at the limits of the capabilities of the gear, my K-3 puts 24MP, in the same space the 36 MP K-1 puts 15. For that reason, any bird or wildlife image taken in which the image will be heavily cropped, which is almost given for most birding pictures, the APS_c will give you more resolution on the subject. Same for working the limits with a macro lens. Most of us don't want to carry tubes or bellows APS_c gives us superior macro-magnification.

The other situation I frequently use my APS_c K-3 is hiking and outings where I don't want to carry a lot of weight. My K-3 with 18-135 and great pseudo macro capability is pretty much an all purpose set up. With a DA 55-300 PLM, you have very fast focusing do almost everything rig. What do I have to do to get the same kind of capability with the full frame? My 28-105, my 60-250 and 300 2.8 with 1.4 TC. 3 pounds compared to over 10 pounds. That's a comfortable hike compared to a hike with aching shoulders at the end.

When is it better to have the full frame... almost all the time. As long as you have the lenses to frame your subject properly FF is better one way or another. So if you know what you're shooting and you are guaranteed there won't be issues with not being able to get close to your subject (or your not going to be able to frame a macro because the minimum focusing distance of the lens won't let you)  then the FF always comes out on top. 

My guess is I use my FF 80% of the time. But because of the faster burst rate with my APS_c body, for birding and wildlife I take a lot more images in a much shorter time. So half my images are taken with APS-c.

IN short, on many trips, I take both. If I take just one, it's likely to be APS_c for the easier carrying and lighter lenses for the same job. But, on a nature trip with landscape and sunset opportunities, I'll take the FF. That really limits wildlife opportunities but, it's always a case of evaluating trade offs, and guessing what I might get for opportunities to take mages.

But is APS_c just like FF only worse? Hell no. Every format has it's strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes I use my Pentax XG-1 1:1.2 (don't buy that camera, I basically stole it so I use it but at MSLP, no way) crop bridge camera because it gives me the best opportunities for the results I want.

The biggest draw back to this type of question is the answers by people devoted to one camera system, FF or APS-c who don't understand the benefits of the other systems, Those of us who own lots of camera systems in different formats have much better feel for the strengths of each. Simply stated, if you're really serious, you'll have access to many different formats and use each to it's strength. Personally, even though I use my FF 80% of the time, if I had to choose I'd go APS-c. APS-c is better at doing what FF does best, than FF is at doing what APS-c does best, for my style of shooting. Others of course will be different, have different needs and opinions, and that's fine. It's up to you to figure out how things would line up for you. All the above is, is how it is for me.