Which camera? SD870 or SD890?

Are the extra features on the 890 worth the money? I'm not a pro photographer, but I travel a lot as a fundraiser for nonprofit and need to take nice pictures of projects. Also, I need a camera that I can easily stick in a pocket or purse. And I find that I use the video feature on my current camera, the Nikon Coolpix 4800. I'm not rich or an equipment head, but I need to capture people in action and take lots of pictures of kids playing games and people doing theater. My Nikon was too big and my action shots often came out blurry. I've read lots of good things about the SD870 but am hoping to go 3-5 years without buying a new camera. Maybe it's worth the extra money for more megapixels and features?

Thanks! You've probably saved me a lot of money.

Just a quick note for other viewers. I'm looking to make the same decision and from what I've read, the 870 comes with a wide angle lens which is extremely useful and a larger lcd screen. As mentioned above the 890 has the better optical zoon at 5x. Personally, even if they were the same price, I would go for the 870. Cheers.

i have leaned towards the 870 over the 890 as well simply because it has less megapixels than the 890. Their sensors are the same sizes but the 890 packs more pixels which automatically and theoretically should make its pic quality less than the 870.

Actually there is a significant difference not discussed here - the 870 is a 28mm wideangle lens and the 890 is 35mm more square angle lens.

the 870 also has a more scratch proof 3" digital screen instead of the easy to scratch lcd screen. Personally I want to 5x optical zoom, but having looked at the 870 today, the wide angle pics are nice. I am expecting the 890 in the mail tomorrow. The later batch of canons has had a simulated wide angle feature that in my mind makes the 890 the better camera. Bigger lens, BIGGER Flexibility, all that said the 200SX is the best option out there 12x optical and a wideangle lens together -- woot !