The 100 is too limited with a 10x zoom and the 300 is too expensive for what you get. How about something new at NAB that is not another restrictive still camera?

Quite agree. Other than the XF300 being too expensive. Seems that the SLR form factor is fashionable - god knows why!

I was hoping for a longer time that Canon would produce a xh-a1 replacement at a comparable pricepoint (maybe a xf200?) but if that would happen, it would be at least 1000 euro more expensive as the xh-a1 once was, especially when you consider the xf100 is almost the price of what a xh-a1 once was priced. But I stopped waiting and got myself a Sony...

The XF series is the replacement for the XH series... sort of... except for the pricing disparity.

Not only Canon but other camera manufacturers have been doing some weird things in their line up of camera's and all mainly for profit, Canon f.I. never gave us a real xh-a1 replacement, maybe they will with a xf200, who knows, but 7 years after their first HDV camera they only have given us a much more limited in terms of functionality and expensive camera like the xf100 and a better one like the xf300 at almost twice the cost.

With their new c line up they gave an answer to the dslr limitations but they make the camera so ridiculous expensive, even the c100 without a lens is more expensive then the xf300, in terms of used materials the xf300 seems like a more expensive camera to produce, especially because it has a lens included.

Then you have the deliberately crippling of mid to lower end camera's to protect their higher end cameras, like giving the 6d a sensor that suffers from moire and aliasing but assure that the 5dIII doesn't have that.

It almost looks like they expect you to pay at least 6000 euro if you want to be able to play with the big boys while in the past you had one model (like a xh-a1) that wasn't crippled on purpose, that had all needed functionality and at a pricepoint many could afford.

The kicker for Canon is the 4:2:2 codec. It's one of the only things keeping me from going elsewhere but I am starting to question for some of my work if it is even worth investing in.

I started with the extremely popular and well priced Panasonic DVX. I left Panasonic when they initiated the extremely expensive P2 cards. I then went to the Canon XH-A1 and have been very pleased with my workflow and quality. The Canon XF300 arrived with a similar 1\3 chip but quality reduced CMOS and a price tag that was deadly for those of us with a budget. I anticipated rushing back to Panasonic and their AGAC130 but poor reviews that forced Panasonic to ad a revised "A" model stopped me from a change.
I was hopeful that the Canon 100's would be my solution but a 10x zoom, as I mentioned, makes the camera useless.
This leaves Sony and JVC as the only other possibilities. OR increase my stock of DV tapes along with my DN60 Compact Flash alternative.
There are not many choices for those of us that see a DSLR workflow as going backwards.

When I made the switch to HD in 2011, I had to leave Canon and go with Sony because at that time the XF series was quite expensive (for me, a weekend warrior), and didn't offer the attractive dual recording that the Sony NX5U offered. As a wedding video guy, I thought that was more important (peace of mind) than having 422. To date, I have not been disappointed with my choice. I'm still getting lots of work. LOL

This week, I've kind of gone backwards though. I bought a Canon HV40 miniDV camcorder from BH Sunday.

I have about 10 years worth of miniDV tapes from the GL1/XL1s days that eventually convert some of to digital. Also I figured it would give me a back up cam to my Sony, so I don't have to keep borrowing my friends XHA1.

I see that Sony still makes a couple high-end HD miniDV cams. Too bad Canon got out of that market for their Pro Stuff, but I guess all digital is the future.

It's not the future, it's the present. The NX5 is a great choice for the price and features. It doesn't have 422 but for the kind of work that the camera is meant for, you don't really need it.