Does IS on dslr's really make that much of a difference?

Which is a better buy?

is it more worth it to buy a more expensive camera + one lens because the quality of the picture would be noticeably better. However i would then need to buy an additional zoom lens.

Or, would buying a lower quality camera that comes with the two lenses work out better? However, the longer zoom lens on this bundle doesn't have IS, so would it actually be worth cutting down on the camera quality? Or should i just go for the more expensive and get better results?

i hope that all makes sense, as much info as possible is appreciated

thanks in advance.

Canon EOS 550D with 18-55mm IS Lens
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77142/show.html

Nikon D3100 + 18-55mm VR Lens + 55-200mm Non VR Lens
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/81730/show.html

Stay away from such double lens kits, especially if the telephoto lens is unstabilized, It will be very hard to achieve sufficient shutter speeds with that lens in anything but bright sunlight. IS or VR is VERY important for such slow telephoto lenses.

Also, it may turn out that you're not actually into a kind of photography where you can make use of a telephoto lens; you might turn out to be a landscape photography fan who could make much better use of a ultra wide angle lens instead. Hence i wouldn't buy such a double lens kit - the saving is minuscule, but there's a big risk that you end up with a lens that you just don't need.

It does make a difference if you don't know how to steady a camera… If you shake a lot, then I'd
go for IS.

Also I find, I shoot video with a 500D, that IS helps a lot with hand held video - makes a lot of
difference.