SD20 vs. SD300

ok I just got an sd300. my question is... why is the sd300 more expensive the the sd20. all the sd20 seems to lack is optical zoom and a smaller screen which is understandable since it's smaller...the sd20 is smaller in size, though its 5mp compared to 4mp..not that the sd300 is small enough anyways....soooo what am i missing here? is optical zoom (only 3x really that much worth it)?

thanks

I have a SD300 and love it! It has a combination optical/digital zoom, but I leave the digital zoom "turned off" because the picture quality really suffers noticeably when using digital zoom. It's just blowing up pixels, so the further you zoom in the more the picture degrades. If picture quality is an issue to you and you plan on making prints from your images, avoid a "digital zoom only" camera like the SD20. The SD300 is a great camera - go for it!

There's also "Continuous shooting", which requires a bigger buffer, a few more modes, and the ability to use an AC adapter.

Well for starters....digital zoom sucks. it makes the pictures look messed up. Also, the SD20 doesn't have as good a movie mode as the SD300.

That one extra megapixel the SD20 has won't even make a difference unless you're blowing up a big poster to print out.

I have the SD300 and I love it so far. You can get it for $329 from beachcamera.com

thanks for the replys... i know digital zoom is crap it's just like taking a pic and zooming in on it using your computer. I already have the sd300...got it as a gift...was just a little curious on things you know?