This has come up before. Here and here, among other places. Perennial challenge for me. Folks who say that any brand's "regular" length is already short enough don't get it. I have a 27" inseam. Regular length Patagonias - never mind the price - are still 4" too long.
Many of the brands that people mention as having short lengths - e.g., Arcteryx - do so more in theory than in practice, and on fewer models every year. I called them about it last time I was looking. I think they told me that for the model I was asking about they had produced something like one dozen pair for the whole world that year.
The increasing trend to baggy just makes things worse, because most of us who have short legs are also small all around, so pants that are baggy on a regular physique just look like clown wear on us. I tried on a pair of Mountain Hardwear Snowpocalypse pants in a Small Short and it was like wearing a one of those blue tarps that I put over the firewood pile in the winter. Ridiculous. Could have put two of me in there.
Currently wearing a pair of 2012-13 Mountain Hardwear Snowtastic pants. They are excellent, barring a few minor gripes. Second time in a row I've ended up in Mtn. Hardwears, because they are essentially the only brand that ever seems to have shorts that actually exist and are semi-affordable (if you buy on closeout).