On the download page I have posted a nice little pocket guide. Have a look. The booklet is a PDF file and the format is such that it can be printed by Lulu, a POD company.

There is a remarkable difference between the approach by Apple for designing new products and the classical approach as seen by the numerous advices on the internet about how to proceed when designing new products. The Apple approach is to study the people’s behavior about a certain domain, be it the way one uses computers, music gadgets or mobile phones or recently internet content. The iPad is going to change the way people read books and magazines and how publishers distribute content, with the possible consequence that large printing presses will become obsolete, just like photofinishing has been killed by on line photobooks and home printing devices.
The Apple approach then concentrates on the HOW to do things. The pipedreaming on the internet about the development of equipment concentrates on the WHAT to have things. This is a totally misguided approach. It might be useful to get insights into the current ideas about what to like and dislike about products, but it would be wrong to assume that these ideas should be transformed into new products. The collective thinking may be good for very small incremental changes, but not for major innovations.
Remember the birth of the 35mm camera, designed by Barnack. He did not start with an existing product, but thought long and hard about the way people made photographs (the HOW question). Only after he concluded that a different way of taking pictures was needed, he started to design the new camera, helped by his work on the exposure device for the film camera developed by Mechau.
If we need a new M-camera or more general a new dCRF camera, it would be helpful to think first about how the way we take and use pictures in the digital age and then to device a product that supports this way of doing things. There are numerous studies now on the market by photographer-philosophers and photo-analysts who are developing new approaches to the production, distribution and consumption of digital images. Increasingly the word ‘photography’ is being replaced by ‘digital imaging’ and it may be a short time before we loose the adjective ‘digital’ and talk about images and image files. The camera, once the major part in the imaging chain, is rapidly becoming one of many equally important links in the imaging process. This change has happened with the computer, once a very important instrument, now a ubiquitous tool.
Starting from an existing product and projecting wishes into the future is certainly a pleasant way of killing time, but it is totally unproductive when you really want to chart the future. Then you need to think about how you want to take and use pictures in the next decade. Only when you know the future environment and the future goals, then you can design the products that support or even foster this new way of taking pictures.
There is not one company in the photographic industry that is really thinking of new products. The current dSLR and even the Micro4/3 concepts are designs that go back to the previous century and are at least fifty years old. Using a Nikon F or a Nikon D3s does not ask for really different faculties or knowledge.
Let me be clear about this: I am happy with the Leica M9 and M7 and the range of tools that surround these cameras, because I am still photographing in the classical manner and I have no inclination to change this behavior. Some people even ask me to stop using AgX technology as this technique is presumed dead and totally obsolete. I would say that everything that is fun to use has its charm and can be of value to some persons. But I do see very clearly that the classical style of photography as a way of taking and using images is rapidly disappearing. On the other hand, even mainframe computers are popular again.

The American economist Herbert Simon has noted that one can never know anything for sure and that decision making is always subjective. So you may decide whatever you want. Why cannot we have secure decision making? First of all you never know if you have all relevant or necessary information. Secondly you do not know if your mental faculties are able to extract the maximum value from the information you do have and thirdly you do not have a limited time for decision making, so you will always have to cope with imperfect knowledge. This basic fact may be the reason why there are so many websites and internet forums that try to reassure anyone about the quality of his/her decision. Most internet forums do nothing else than giving information and assurance that the right decision has been made. This is called the conformity-domino effect: you only want to read what confirms what you already know or believe.

If Leica photographers would use only a fraction of their time they now spend on the internet discussing things Leica, for taking pictures in whatever way they seem fit, the quality of Leica imagery would explode. Taking and consuming Leica pictures is more satisfying than talking about Leica cameras. Leica cameras are not perfect. There never were. But the great masters of Leica photography adapted their style to the characteristics of the camera. The same is true for the capture medium: films were never ideal: all had quirks and defects. Trying to construct a perfect camera as part of a perfect imaging chain is a vain effort of shifting responsibility for the good picture to the material instead to the maker, that is the photographer. We live in an imperfect world and that is not going to change.
In the end I prefer to work within the limits of the camera and the medium.
This is a choice of course based on imperfect knowledge.