I have found a discussion on this question here
As with much, it appears to me to be entirely subjective in response; there's only ever going to be one worthwhile method to evaluate, and you already know what it is: buy your local Nikon dealer man a drink, and try out both cameras.
But hey, you also know that it is your input that matters most every time in any art. I am sure your work will still be top drawer, as in the past, whatever camera you adopt. Can either of us afford the time to worry about
cameras of all things?
I'm older than you, and what I have discovered, despite my original objections to it, is that af is pretty essential for my state of vision; stabilisation matters not to me - if anything, I find too much crispness (yes, I believe it exists) to be a bit of a mood killer. As for having the camera do sharpening, not on your life: I need to be in control of those things, hence my digital experience has always been to turn everything as manual as I can. The computer is a more relaxed forum for making such decisions which, anyway, may only be required - or be useful - in tiny areas of a frame. It's not coincidence that makes me think good film results look more pleasing than too critically crisp digital ones of similar things.
There's one good street shooter here who, in my view, shoots himself in the foot by sometimes turning his work into 4x5 lookalikes, thus killing the very essence of "street" which is something that needs the impression of what HC-B called à la sauvette. Crewdson is not street.
:-)