That caught your attention I'll bet. Here ARE the facts, but not the answers. Those, I hope, will come from you.

I keep seeing where people say that the main aversion to the Rifa is the cost. Then they follow it up by saying that they will put a Tota in a softbox or something like that.

Now I'm sure that if you ALREADY OWN the Tota, then this makes financial sense, but here's a little "for instance"... using B&H's prices.

Tota... $110
Photoflex speed ring... $74
Photoflex softbox... $130 for 16x22 cinedome

Total cost $314

Rifa 250w 16x16 $295

So if you are starting with nothing, what's better? I'm assuming the Rifa, but I'll be all ears if you guys want to set me straight.

Thanks... Matt.

16x16" aperture max wattage 250 watts. What was your question Matt? The difference between a 16x16 aperture and a 24x32" is considerable. the latitude to lamp from 250 to 750 watts is there as well. The Photoflex also includes the mask and louver kit.

A 21"x21" max 500 watter is $410
A 25x25 can take a max wattage of 750 for $480.

There not a bad price. I just see the Tota as being more versatile and the photoflex as having a larger surface area.

Bryan's right on both counts. The Lowel Tota is very light-weight and versatile. The Photoflex box is also excellent. (I own both.)

I think the main advantage of the Rifa is its speed of setup / tear-down and its ease of transport. The Photoflex and its speed ring always take a bit of wrestling to set up. The Rifa is almost like an umbrella to set-up and it folds down into something nearly as easy to carry as an umbrella.

Sorry Matt, I just re read and saw that 16 x 22 small photofl;ex. Well I still have the same opinion.

I'm not saying anything negative about the Rifa .

Another observation though. The Rifa has a glass envelope as a safety, which does net you more light as opposed to a wire safety screen. (70% loss for wire on the Tota)

The Rifa needs more cool down time than the Tota before you can disassemble the unit.