I found the film a bit hard to like when I had to scan it - compared to other base materials, it appeared downright brittle and flimsy, but it probably just felt that way among all the other rather stout b&w strips I was handling. The scans turned out fine, btw. - just a little harder to balance than Acros 100, and if that's not a recommendation, I don't know what is ... As for shooting it, I'm a bit peculiar in that I prefer finely graded films to those with lots of contrast; I only noticed this recently when comparing images with very similar subjects (I shoot a lot of forest stuff - it seems to speak to me; it's a little embarrassing, really): smooth transitions really are my thing - and XP2 is solid middle of the road here, even though old-fashioned HP5+ suits me a little better, in spite of being a bit grainier. Actually, Delta 400 delivers quite similar results to XP2, a tiny bit crisper, but also coarser when it comes to transitions - again, just a tad; the upside is finer (but grittier, rougher) grain. I'd say that for most purposes, XP2 and Delta 400 are interchangeable, and given the convenience of the C41 process for lab processing, XP2 really is wonderful to have around. In the end, it's a question of taste anyway - and your images really show off the impressive dynamic range XP2 is capable of; of course, a lot of that is your doing ... I really like the slightly more "daring" appearance of the YashicaMat images, btw. - the first and last images are my favourites, in spite of the solid results you got from the MX.
M: