I think it depends on what you want to do with the camera, too.

What I want and need are nature and candid portrait.

One does not really need 10 megapixels these days unless you are a professional with certain requirements for reproducing large photos. (this is my son's advice).

But the zoom capability is limited on small cameras.

There is a site that evaluates cameras I found very helpful:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

I used that site to whittle down my Sony which was my first digital purchase. It helped me decide between Canon and Kodak.

There are also forums on the net with people who have bought them. Amazon has a rating place for each too. The Canon zoom at the time had a small viewing screen, and had problems with focus. The Kodak had about 50% of purchasers who were very unhappy with it. So at the time I chose the Sony and I can tell you it is a fabulous camera. Now there are other models. The H50 has replaced mine, for example.

Most of the super zooms have anti-motion feature, and the new ones have very good anti-noise added (wish I had the anti-noise). The anti-noise allows for taking pics in low light, which you may otherwise miss...and when you put them in computer, you will not get as much distortion.

I am stilll waffling on getting a new one. I guess for me it is learning a whole new digital/computerized camera...which will slow me down quite a bit when I get the quick nature event that requires speed...like hummingbirds!

If you have problems like tremor you'll like the antimotion features some have. If you need a large viewing screen, you'll have to choose Sony for example, they typically have the largest.
If money is a factor, you'll probably want Kodak. They are always less $$ than the other names.

All of the super zooms are automatic and have manual features if you want to turn them into an SLR. They typically do not take RAW formats. RAW is a bit beyond me, but my son uses that. Says the pictures are "better". RAW is found in SLR digitals.