also titled "Is the Image Stabilization really that good?"

So have narrowed my choice for a DSLR basically down to these two. They're both amazing cameras for the price, and I have no doubt that I'd be ecstatic with either (coming from a simple crappy P&S camera). I used to have a Minolta X-700 back in the day, and liked the control and quality of the shots, but after a few electrical problems (and got tired of paying for film and processing) I opted for the P & S but have always had a soft spot for SLRs, and think that the price/benefits have finally come down to the point where I want to jump in.

This would be used for a bit of everything, from indoor/outdoor to nature and all the way to relatively fast sporting events (downhill mountain bike racing). Nothing in even a semi-professional setting, just enthusiast level.

While they both have their advantages (Canon: Lenses, Sensor, Noise, Sony: IS, better kit lens, battery, etc), it seems it really does come down to Sony's IS system vs pretty much everything else about Canon. Just keep going back and forth as to whether Sony's IS system is worth the (other very minor) advantages that Canon has. Thoughts? Especially PJ's since he does quite a bit of mtn biking photographpy, and coincidently currently has both. Haven't really thought that lens shake was a big deal, but then it's been a, uh, few years since I've handled an SLR for more than 20min.

Have handled both and could be comfortable using either. The XTi's a little small for me, but my GF (would would be using this 10-20% of the time) has TINY hands, and the XTi fit her perfectly.

Thoughts? Is the IS really that good? Is the Canon's advantages in sporting events really not that big of a deal? A lot of shooting for mtn biking takes place under the leaf canopy and requires a decently fast (not blisteringly fast) shutter peed. Help?