There are several ways to do it... but none cheaper than the Nano that I am aware of. As Farss mentioned, you might be able to get a laptop with something a Matrox MX02 mini and record tethered. That's probably the cheapest way, but certainly not very convenient.

So, the 422 on the Canon to Flash is, at the prosumer price, must be quite a novel option then? Yes?

Grazie

( . . my mental pennies are kinda dropping on this!)

Yes, the Canon is the first camera to record full raster 422 1080 onto SDHC.

The Sony EX1/EX3 record full raster 420 1080 onto SDHC as does the new JVC
The Panasonic HMC150 records full raster 420 1080 onto SDHC
The Panasonic HPX170 records thin raster 422 1080 onto P2

Many are hoping (myself included) that Sony is able to upgrade the EX1/EX3 cameras via firmware to record 422/1080. It's the same codec and it's available in Sony's slightly higher range cameras. It would be a nice upgrade for us all this fall if we could get it. Their latest firmware just gave us all full overcrank on SDHC which we suspected was there all along, but was hobbled because SDHC cards were too slow prior to this year for it to be reliable. 422/1080 has much the same issue.

Ah! Got it! - Thanks Mr.P

Grazie

"Can I ask why you'd not want to use a Nano?"

It's not that I wouldn't want to; the Nano looks like an amazing piece of equipment. I was considering selling my V1u on eBay, because right now I'm either renting ex1's for projects, while in the meantime, I'm developing a workflow for using DSLR's for my interview work. I thought I could resurrect the V1u to correlate with the DSLR quality/SDHC card workflow by picking up a Nano. But for that price, I could purchase a laptop/Matrox mini (I don't do any run/gun, so being tethered to a laptop wouldn't matter).

In general I'd caution against the use of HDMI as an interconnect to a recording device simply because of the physical nature of the system. We've already had clients complain about the problem of the plugs falling out of the Canon cameras and the monitors. There is no locking mechanism on HDMI, it was intended only as an interconnection for consummer devices.
Although SDI is generally more expensive to implement it does bring the security of BNC connectors and a lighter weight cable. There are other benefits to SDI over HDMI that may or may not be of benefit e.g. timecode.

Bob.

This issue has been mitigated to a degree:

http://www.accellcables.com/products/videoCables/HDMI/HDMI-AVGrip.htm
http://www.bettercables.com/ppc-locking-hdmi-cable.aspx

But yes, SDI is better on some fronts (timecode, run length, etc.) However a lot fewer cameras have it, and companies still charge a premium to get it.

That's certainly a big step in the right direction however many cameras use the "mini" HDMI connections. I guess one could tape them into the camera, preferably NOT with gaff tape.
To be fair I'll raise much the same issue with those 4pin firewire connections. At least the firewire cables can be had in a lighter weight which helps a little.

Bob.