Today Chrlz commented courteously on the subject at hand

For the sake of completeness, mainly that someone else may
stumble on this thread looking for useful information...

While I was there, I talked to the manager, whom I know
well and trust, about the (apparent) noise I'm seeing with
my XT. Like most everyone else, he was incredulous, then
strongly suggested that my particular camera was defective,
as his experience was 100% the opposite.

Given that later he establishes that the store-owner's 100%
good camera and his 'bad' one behave identically, what
would a normal person infer?

So, I pumped off about 30 shots, some with the built-
in Speedlite and some available light, across subjects with
a lot of detail and both light and dark backgrounds (the
latter to better pick up any inherent noise).

In other words he went looking for noise in dark areas...

1) /Both/ camera's, my "defective" one and his "working"
one showed the /same/ amount of noise at /all/ ISO from 100
to 1600 on /all/ 3 of my PCs. Naturally, no noise is
readily apparent until ISO 400 on both cameras.

Good-oh. No real surprises there.

2) Despite being careful on Programmed Auto in both flash

Oh dear. Here we go back to square one. I've never yet
met a camera/flashgun combo that had infallible
auto-exposure. In particular, and as stated MANY times, if
the subject has significant refelective areas that bounce
the flash back at the sensor/s.. You can't be 'careful' in
auto mode. Manual mode, or proper flash metering, is being
careful.

some of the pics I took with the store's
camera and pics I took in my house with my own, are a stop
or 2 underexposed. Please don't debate this yet, either.

When should we? It's directly relevant. Even at a single
stop underexposure, noise problems will be exaggerated, and
at 400 ISO will be by far the most significant cause. And
on auto mode, he is asking for wrongly exposed images,
especially if there is anything even remotely challenging
in the subject. Like.. chrome and polished paintwork.

The more the underexposure, the higher the noise.
Well, Duh?! I already knew that, and that explains the
extra noise I got Wednesday at the WPC Museum - but which
I've already explained I understand.

And we do too.

so far, it still looks like the medium 5.5 MP images
saved on both cameras with the highest quality
(least JPEG compression) /all/ show about the same amount
of noise.

Fine. Point being? And why not at least use Tiff files if
evaluating noise.

Suffice to say that there /is/ a problem with the Rebel XT
- from my perspective.

Key words - 'from my perspective'.

Another way of saying all this is - 'I'm not prepared to
put in the effort to ensure my images are correctly
exposed, even though I shoot shiny objects in dim
environments, namely cars with an on-camera flash (yes, I'm
*serious*). My images come out underexposed and noisy.
It's the equipment's fault. I can't believe that all my
cameras and flashes have this problem to a greater or
lesser extent, and that no-one here will help me. It's
certainly not my technique, and don't you *dare* suggest
I'm trying to do something the wrong way. Agree with me
and I'll be your friend. Suggest anything else and get in
the neck.'

Now, you can all write me off as just another
nutbag/troll/incompetant/inexperienced/closed
minded/asshole if you like.

Heavens no. Not us. Uh-uh. No way.

But, as the saying goes "I don't know anything about art,
but I know what I like."

The people who say that are BUYING the art, not creating
it. I think he missed the point of the metaphor entirely.
(O: (O: (O:

Insults to me or my intelligence will be ignored.

I betcha he doesn't.....

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the
pseudonym Stephen G. Tallentyre