I enjoy shooting this film in the winter, finding that it works well with cooler tones. The few rolls I shot in summer came out with skies blown out and very dark shadows.
I haven't had a bad exposure with the Pentax 67, this film seems to expose differently on 35mm, it's much better to work with in 120.

It just is. It doesn't have the saturated colour that Kodachrome did, but then Kodachrome never came in 120 rolls. I have pictures from '87 taken on this film, 35mm. It lasts over time and it's colours, on the cooler scale , are true. Ar it's best under wi ter syndrome, you can try and push it to it's limits regarding available light. And there is one other thing. It's exposure latitude is crucial, it won't forgive poor technique! Note: All pictures are archive 35mm Ektachromes from 1987 taken with an inexpensive Practika PM3 SLR camera scanned with a plustek 35mm scanner. Archive quality. Currently using a 6x6 Seagull twin lens reflex with a phone app light meter. 😀
Cheers, Duncan.

I know, being the best is subjective, and based on criteria we all have different needs for. But I think if you were asked to take one camera, one film, to capture something amazing and one-off that was going to happen; you better take this. Unless that one-off thing was a contrasty sunny day with harsh side light, then better off using colour negative. I save this for special occasions.

I had long feared shooting colour positive film for its reputation of being unforgiving, but I'm really happy with the results with Ektachrome. The colours are vibrant and punchy thanks to the built in contrast, and I didn't find the metering too bad at all. Definitely something I'll be shooting a lot more of

As you would expect - a perfect slide film from Kodak! Sweet warm colours included, but can be a little bit unexpected in a wrong weather.