Originally Posted by FieryCoD
There's still one thing that puzzles me. The Image Stabilization isn't really needed for me in my opinion, because I think that I can manage to take some steady shots.
Let me say IMO image stabilization is right behind number of megapixels as the most overrated feature. ESPECIALLY in short kit lenses. Just like a ton of MP, there are situations where anti-shake are beneficial. But not very frequently in situations where a short (i.e. 17-80mm type range) kit range is appropriate. Invariably there are people who tell you it's a must - they'll show you two types of shots: 1) a shot that still shows blur because the subject moved or the photog moved more than anti-shake could handle or 2) a shot of a boring inanimate object you would never take a photo of but the photog did solely for the purpose of testing the ability to hand-hold at 1/6 of a second.
Now, I shoot Canon. My walk-around lens has anti-shake. But out of about 10,000 shots from the lens, maybe 25 required IS.
All the cameras being discussed are great tools. But don't fall into the trap that someone tells you it's essential to have a 12mp camera or anti-shake (or ISO 6400) for general purpose photography. If all else is absolutely equal then these types of things are nice to haves. But based on your stated needs I wouldn't make my choice based on them.