Learning how to use a microscope? This video will help you understand
microscope magnification/zoom/power, and why more does not mean better.
A $20 USB microscope claims to have 1600x zoom but my premium Zeiss microscope only has a 400x max zoom. What gives? Spoiler alert: There's some shady business going on here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We keep the lights on by selling giant microscope slides with thousands of live organisms inside.
Learn more at:
microsafari.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the link to the USB microscope that I am using. It's not a bad microscope, just not 1600x.
amzn.to/38C5yhA
This is an Amazon Affiliate Link. If you buy the microscope, we may get a small share of the sale.
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
0:28 Comparing Images
0:55 Optical VS Apparent Magnification
1:20 How to Find Optical Magnification
1:50 Hands-On Optical Magnification Demo
4:05 Digital Microscope Anatomy
6:01 How to Find Apparent Magnification
8:15 How much Magnification do you Actually Need?
This video is a lie. This microscope is perfect for some things. Like smd repairs on circuit boards. If you want to look at anything on a smaller scale. This microscope will do the trick. The only downside is the video quality but it's good enough to see clearly not fuzzy. You won't be able to get a real microscope for that price but this is definitely worth it.
This USB microscope is perfect for my needs...hobbyist watch repair...with the PC screen as a visual aid.
I started out by saying this doesn't need to be a 10 minute video, and by the end I said this absolutely needed to be a 10 minute video. Great job, thanks!
After all of your interesting analysis it would be great if you could please share with us all what the ACTUAL optical zoom is of that digital microscope.
What microscope would you recommend with high magnification with a wide field of view? I'm wanting to look through pans of dirt and see all the small granular specs in detail.
Very information video as always, is there any portable handheld microscope is available in market that can be use with haemocytometer...
So if it's crap, what do you recommend as a USB Microscope or via a reliable app for $125 to observe Wafers (semiconductor)?
Super duper helpful! I'm looking for a portable field microscope for a bike trip of all things, looks like the hunt is still on and could be called off. A full on microscope is just too cumbersome to take on a long bike trip.
Htere micro scope portable from celctron but I dont if it,s good or no
Did you end to finding anything? Cause I'm looking something for this exact need too
I don't want to spend crazy amount of money. What do you think I need to film a turntable's needle while it's playing a record? To see it up close and maybe see some dust and debris clearly. I'd appreciate your reply.
Hello sir. I'd like to purchase this because I deal with used leather shoes. Do you think it's suitable/capable to see the pores in animal skin(leather)? I need to identify if it's real leather or synthetic. Advanced thanks🙂
Anyone have a link to that video he was talking about at the end? It doesn't pop up on my screen for some reason
Hello friend, I have barely seen 2 videos of yours and they are magnificent, just do not despair, keep it up, and the content is interesting, in addition to the naturalness with which you express them, it is very good. Greetings from Mexico
Superb demonstration and explanation 👍
I used a Carson 250x pocket microscope and a "13MP" cell phone camera and ended up with about 850 pixels per pixel on a picture of a 95.5 DPI display. My Monitor is 24", but as you said, that doesn't change how much detail there is. Carson also makes an 80 dollar solution that is a self-contained USB device, but that's only listed as 457x. And only has a "2MP" sensor. I'm not great at math, but I don't think the overall detail of a 457x image at 2MP would even come close to a 250x image at 12MP.
Yes! People hate on smartphone microscope adapters but fail to realize that the fact that smartphone cameras are so good makes up for lower quality optics in the pocket microscope itself.
@@micro_safari I just wish it wasn't so flimsy. And I wish my smartphone didn't try to decide to refocus for the picture after I already did that to my liking.
@@xnamkcor I haven't tried the carson microflip but I've had pretty good luck with the other smartphone microscope adapters. You might need a 3rd party camera app if you are having camera autofocusing issues. I use an android and usually its not an issue for me
Still a pretty cool little gadget. Would you say the quality of the product is worth it for the hobiest repairing/learning to repair boards etc?
The wobble of the stand makes it a pain to get set up but once it is set up after a few minutes of fiddling it would work ok for that
I started rock tumbling and I wanted a microscope to be able to see their crystalline structures. This type of microscope was appealing because it doesn’t use slides to see things. What would you recommend for this purpose?
Most USB/HDMI microscopes will work well for this. If possible look for one that has adjustable gooseneck lights. The rocks will be very shiny and if the light just comes from LEDs around the objective it may be too much direct reflected glare to get a good image. I'm a big fan of my ADSM302, but it is quite pricey.
So excited for my son to be old enough for me to teach him all this! Thank you for passing your knowledge along! ❤
Hello. Didnt know you come around these parts. Hope you and the kiddo are doing well! ♥️ Thx for the sub
can't you teach him something else ? like astronautics and aeronautics
Thank you very much for calling them out on that. On the other hand…that’s pretty sweet for 20 bucks…
welp i still use this 15$ microscope for my project and work like charm except the to much lagging if you zoom to much
That was interesting, thanks. I have bought one of those 1600x scopes for £8 and that to me was wort it for testing, but also to see the odd thing bigger. I knew it would not be amazing, this video highlights this and I'm glad you made it. It does show that as usual corporations use ignorance to promote items using 'sales puff'. It's all about relativity.
Dear Bro. You had done a great job and opened my eyes towards the magnification of the subjects under microscopes
Ive seen carson talking about the gaining more magnification by having a larger monitor. I was like what???
It can make it better having 2mpx resolution instead 0,3mpx if you want to shoot some pics, or the image quality remains the same? (Or maybe that's fake info to) Thanks !
A higher resolution sensor will typically yield a better quality image
@@micro_safari Thanks for your answer!! 🥰
3:10 .. also, that lens flips the image-- You can see on your white paper that the image is upside down and backwards without the lens cap.
Big Q for ya! I ended up down the rabbit hole that led me here because after buying an Andonstar digital microscope, I realized that I should have invested in a trinoc optical compound. I'd been fooled by the claims of "4500x" magnification. Now I want to purchase an trinoc compound and get an adapter for my DSLR/mirrorless cameras. The strongest magnification I've come across is 2.5x for those adapters, which compared to a 10x eyepiece seems limiting. Do you find that with a 2.5x adapter and sayyy an 100x oil immersion objective, you can still get very good digital images of biological samples. Im hoping to look at fungal and mold spores. The andonstar digital doesnt come close. lol
Sure, camera sensor pixels have a physically different size than the retinas in our eyes though, therefore the relative apparent magnifications will be quite different than what you'd expect if you are just doing optical magnification calculations. I have a microscope camera that has no additional magnification after the objective and is the same apparent magnification as if I am looking through a 25x eyepiece. I wish I could give you a firm answer on what you need, but it is very setup dependent on how small the spores are and the pixel size of your image sensor. I do really like the andonstar microscopes btw, they just aren't optically set up to observe high magnificaiton transmitted light samples like spores.
At the present time, only Keyance's optical microscope has the best quality and the highest magnification is about 3000x, which is quite close to the limit of optical microscopes.
Impossible comparisons, both for the price and for the quality of the materials, but above all for the purpose for which certain microscopes are purchased!
Exactly. It´s like comparing a Ferrari with a Hiundai. Both are cars, but Ferrari is more expensive and faster than Hiundai.
Can I buy a Zeiss AX10 Microscope for $20 or even $200? This vid is just clickbait. 🤣🤣🤣
I'm legally blind and use a 52" tv connected to my computer as a monitor. Trying to find a digital microscope for mycology. Any idea what direction I might want to go with a digital microscope around $300-$500? It'd be nice to find something that isn't junk and has a crisp image.
Could you maybe make videos using the Amscope b120, you could maybe look at water samples or something using it.
Noted! Thank you for your suggestion.
@@micro_safari Also you could maybe review it, obviously if you want to!
I was going to buy a palliparner digital telescope that supposedly has a x1200 zoom limit. Would that be bs as well?
It is certainly not equivalent to 1200x true optical magnification. I will let you determine if that is bs or not.
Thank you for the informative video.
4:29 If you unscrew the conical piece on the end you can see the cmos sensor inside.
it could be same as for macro lenses (with proper factor of equivalence against 35mm format). done and done
friggin awesome video! thanks for the info!
If I have US$ 200 which Microscope, which one do you recommend?
I have similar device, and its magnification is a lot better than you showed, i placed on piece of fabric ant i saw individual strings with it (fabric was sythetic).
I mean it doesn't take a lot of magnification to see individual strings in fabric, probably only like 10x. Frankly unless you are a scientist trying to study something specific anything over 50x is basically pointless, as at that point everything just starts looking like a crappy kaleidoscope. Sellers just list these ridiculous number because they realize people with no frame of reference don't realize just how massive 50x, or even 20x magnification is.
I'm lost here so what's the optical magnification of the so claimed 1600x microscope
I unfortunately don't know since they don't spec it. You could measure it if you broke it apart and measured the optical magnification of the lens manually. For digital microscopes the final magnification is also dependent on the physical size of the individual sensor pixels themselves. A way to think about this, is that theoretically, if you have an image sensor with pixels sized near the wavelength of visible light itself, you could achieve a magnification equivalent-ish to 1600x optical magnification, even if you are using a 1x objective - no optical magnification at all. The light just needs to be collimated. If there are any optical engineers reading this comment and I have said something incorrect please call me out.
Is not that they're unusable and they are a notch above a novelty toy, but yes the specs are a lie... Also someone decided to stick c-mount lenses on the "expensive" ones and decided to gouge you for 2-3x the actual price but I don't know if that's the "supply shortage" or an inclination as to where the digital microscope industry is heading. $100 dollars worth of electronics and lenses should net a very useable image for soldering etc...I use an "upgraded" version of the scam microscope (it claims 1440p and 1000x on what looks to be a 2mp sensor) but I get an ok video). The thing that tends to set these apart is not the zoom but zoom in conjunction with how much working space (space between object and magnifier) you get. There are supposed 48mp sensors being sold for like 300-500 dollars that all seem to be clones of a 12mp cube box thing, now certainly the more mega pixels you can fit on a sensor the better the image quality and in theory the if coupled with the right lens the better the magnification. I use the cheap thing I bought just fine though. These little bullet type microscopes do have very severe limits, but for the price of $15-30 are adequate and do offer more than your naked eye.
To add to this, a 48 megapixel sensor is pointless if you are trying to push that signal through a USB 2.0 cable. I've only been able to get a 720p video through the USB 2.0 cables at a usable frame rate. To get 1080p30fps you need a digital microscope with USB 3.0 or better (the ones with blue inside the connector), or HDMI. Some really good ones that are wifi connected may also be able to stream 1080p30 without too much compression.
Put the new ketchup under the scope … Moon ketchup vs. Regular ketchup … make sure to stop and grab some packets from fast food restaurants !!! This will get mega views man
for whoever bought this type of product and later found the black plastics became sticky, wipe it with 75%+ or 95% alcohol.
Vídeo muito bom! eu já desconfiava dessa ampliação, mas como não tinha referencia achava que poderia ser verdade, mas de qualquer forma esses microscópios USBs São bons, principalmente para crianças..
that cheap usb microscope is good enough for me. to get that level of detail on the print is amazing
10x * 2.5x is not 250x. Did I miss something?
You did not. Well done.
10 times 2.5 is 25
I noticed that too. While the video is interesting I'm disappointed that the poster did not address his mistake. I get the feeling that he fully realized the error but couldn't be bothered to address it. He's loses marks for that.
Best usb microscope is dinolite. Its just awsome and can be used in any field or application. And they are providing all country do go for dinolite
Hi, Can you please recommend a digital microscope that has the ability to capture red blood cells …etc.
Something like this would work well for you: www.amazon.com/AmScope-B120C-E1-Siedentopf-Magnification-Illumination/dp/B00X4LBKZG/ref=sr_1_14?crid=1FTRYDETAT3TD&keywords=tinyscope&qid=1643044178&sprefix=tinyscope%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-14&th=1 You'll typically need a transmitted light microscope with an actual condenser lens to image red blood cells properly. Otherwise if you need a lower cost option, you can use your smartphone as a digital microscope with the Tinyscope smartphone microscope adapter. That thing has a really surprisingly high magnification and seems to be purposebuilt to look at a microscope slide with a cover slip on it. I think you could get away that.
Thx
Thanks a lot
Finally a new video
Wow you don't even know that your main panasonic camera is not a dslr it's a mirrorless camera
Thats the giant microscope i seen
I think the real question is is that false advertising
Im expecting it to be 200x and thats more thsn enough to see coepods
How is 10x multiplied by 2.5x = 250x? 1:47
Thought I'd search the comments before I posted my question. Yes, while he may be a scientist, he might not be a mathematician. As of now, nobody seems to have spotted it besides us.
That Community reference!!! 😭🤣🤣
I have just tried. The real magnification is only 30x. 1600x is fake.😡
10X2,5=250? Jupiter maths?. Here in earth it s 25.
Sounds to me like you need to do some consulting for these a digital microscope companies man make you that extra bread because you definitely know what you're talkin about and with your help perhaps they can make a much better product and then you can get extra income none the less very good video
Thanks now i know before purchasing this but its an ok item
Long live Mirco Safari
Hi Sir. Would you be bothered whether I politely ask for you to give me this super zeiss MO? 🥺 It is so powerful, I wanna one in my lab😅
As biology student, this is perfect. Anyway I think it worth the price. Thanks a lot
I have a Bausch & lomb stereo microscope with zeiss optics which I got at a yardsale for $25 bucks Its a $3k microscope!! Never really used it though yet I use that cheapo digital one almost everyday! Repairing inspecting circuit boards and vintage mechanical watches .great explanation cheers from Salt Lake City!
Mine is exaggerated 20 time and is only 6-50x
How not even 600 subcribers, but good quality. Does nobody like microscopes?
Thanks Max! We're a newer account working our way up on subscribers. Let us know what other microscope content you'd like to see.
It's actually not press fit. All you need to do is desolder the two pins on the light ring and it all comes apart easily.
Interesting! I'll have to try this next time I'm using that scope for a video
@@micro_safari awesome. glad i could help. i actually just dissasembled mine this morning to clean the sensor. it was much easier than i had anticipated.
@@micro_safari Hello sir. I'd like to purchase this because I deal with used leather shoes. Do you think it's suitable/capable to see the pores in animal skin(leather)? I need to identify if it's real leather or synthetic. Advanced thanks🙂
im a scientist doctor of radiology and my expert opinion, your all wrong. bioflourecent light beams on the molecular level produce ionic pulses that contemplate the outside theory of resolution ×π√19 so without biometric molicules interfering with the biospere what you have is π ÷ 56. SO THATS WHY
you even see the colors its made on
All usb microscope uses the pc for resolution... 😀👍. It's the interpretation of pigments as pixels of the pc as the culprit...we can improve that... 😀.
So it is better to get a conventional microscope and attach a camera to it?
It depends on what you are trying to look at. Digital microscopes definitely work well for reflected light samples in the 200um to 2mm range. Otherwise, yes, if you want to resolve stuff smaller than 200um I definitely recommend a compound microscopes. Whether it is a transmitted or reflected illumination depends on your sample
I believe that LUMIX camera of yours is NOT a DLSR but a MIRRORLESS camera. Looks like a G9 Micro 4/3rds camera?
You are correct, it is mirrorless. I said DSLR because more people know what that is and in this context it doesn't matter if it's DSLR or mirrorless :)
I wished i had seen this video before giving my credit card number... What a bummer.
In saying all that you gotta admit it's pretty good for a $20 kids toy
I don't know anything about this stuff but this was my first video and it was 10/10
This P is huge. I have the same x1600 digital microscope and mine goes way deeper. Maybe something is wrong with yours🌸
Yup, I see these microscopes, there's even US$54 that magnifies 3000x There should be a new term for microscopes and telescopes and not just magnification, like with speakers, it's not really the wattage that determines loudness but it's the impedance or I think the ohms. God bless.
Okay, leo, I'm not feeling it. I really need to believe that you're holding An imaginary doody meter
Now for a cheap microscope to look at coins easier than a loupe... Is it worth the 16.99.
They ain’t perfect but they do the job enough for most things
crazy man
That microscope is meant to be used by the electronic engineers who do SMD soldering. It does that job very good. They don't care about the x magnification factor as long as they can clearly see the 0.1 mm tracks on the PCB.
That is simply a magnifying glass. A sophisticated magnifying glass but in the end just that.
.. I'd say the answer is MUCH simpler.. When we used COMPLETELY analogue solutions.. (lenses and you looking into those lenses).. then how many "times magnification" actually made SENSE.. It no longer does. IF something is (in real life) to you one mm and you perceive it as if it instead had been in 250mm big.. Then.. It makes sense to say "times", because that is literally what it does.. HOWEVER.. it can still be that two different pieces of equipment with the "same" 250x magnification may still provide EXTREMELY different quality, because of the quality of the lenses used.. (To put things in focus helps, but it doesn't counteract bad lenses).. HOWEVER.. since the POINT of the magnification is about making it easier for the eye to discern small details, and the "times" way of measuring this STILL is EXACTLY the same as it ever was.. Then.. No Digital microsope CAN have any form of "magnification" what so ever.. because how BIG it will appear to your EYE.. will not depend as much on the microscope, as it depends on how big your monitor is.. buy a twice as big monitor.. and the actual "magnification" of your entire system WILL be bigger even if the microscope wouldn't know the difference. To talk about how many "times" something is magnified just doesn't make sense in a digital world; at least not without a shitload of extra job in trying to "define" what a pixel in the out-data is supposed to "count as", and also, the "size of area taken photo of covered within each pixel".. and one thing ~I~ have been missing in even ordinary cameras: Is there overlap?.. Because I dare say that there are NO user-owned cameras with a higher pixel-count than 8 Megapixels.. ever.. so your phone have 48 Megapixels?.. dream on.. you may just do a linear interpolation, and put an AI to GUESS if there is a sharp edge somewhere and what it probably WOULD look like if it was in focus.
Oh; He actually said just that.. I have NO idea why he took almost 9 minutes to say: "because in the digital world, measuring zoom in 'times', just doesn't make any form of sense"... But also.. for some reason he don't seem to understand that.. just because you don't get the same fine-grained data by displaying the same amount of pixels, just.. "bigger".. There are STILL a LOT of advantages.. because.. the information may be the "same" in the smaller form, but our eyes are NOT good at noticing details.. so.. I often DO zoom in a lot of stuff to the point where I COULD make out individual pixels.. and.. since I am looking at ordinary photos, and NOT trying to look at a movie "and be fooled by how real it feels", but looking for specific things.. I can often find things when things are just "enlarged".. Also; a LOT of computer monitors today (ESPECIALLY on a laptop.. with HD, or WORSE: 4K, or 8K.. ABSOLUTELY fall in to the category called "Retina display".. this means that each pixel shown, when shown from the "ordinary" viewing distance is SMALLER than the actual resolution of YOUR EYE.. This means that pixels that are RIGHT next to each-other will blend in.. so.. you won't GET the details without a higher magnification. That said; 1600x?.. absolutely.. even 3200x.. as said: All you need to do is show it on a big enough screen, and therefore it doesn't even make sense measuring that way.. So I agree that these numbers are what "watts" have become in the audio-world.. "Imaginary".
So if it's not 1600x, then what is the "actual" zoom?
That is the crux of the problem. There is no correct answer to this question. This is where it gets complicated and depends on what you mean by actual zoom. The USB scope has an objective inside of it that has a specific optical magnification, but that doesn't tell the full story, since there are digital sensors and screens involved. You can compare the images at the beginning to get an idea. From my experience, compared to an optical magnification measured scope it is around 30x-100x for how I had it setup and my personal visual perception. I know this is not a satisfying answer, but it's the best I can give without us defining how we want to measure 'actual zoom'
@@micro_safari RIght on.. That was basically what I wanted to know, which was: What settings on YOUR scope would you have to adjust it to in order to make those side-by-side images look roughly the same. Even if it's only a 100x zoom, it's still pretty cool, and still useful for that $20 price. I ordered one to play with, with my 6yr old son.
@@calholli Totally. I think they managed to create quite a good product for $20. 100x is the correct equivalent optical magnification from my experience.
100x zoom is my calculations
Thanks'! Super!
It's for a pcb not for microscopic enema... 😀
The collimated beam of P.
still pretty darn good for 19,95
It is a lot better to buy 20 usd cheap 1600x microscope rather than your 400x highly expensive microscope that probably cost 4000 usd up. I am 50 y.o man and i use 1600x cheap microscope with some small hacks to repair SMD CIRCUIT BOARDS and other things and it works perfectly.
fucksake, how hard can it be to develop a standard for this? Like of the top of my head the process would be just calculating sensor pixels per square mm and comparing it to the zoom capabilities of an optical telescope to make a neat comparison chart. Shit ain't hard
To add some complications to this - you also have to factor in noisiness of the sensor and firmware that does software corrections to image quality. One image sensor might produce sharp images that work well for certain samples and a different image sensor might have better color sensitivity. The problem is that apparent magnification is inherently subjective. So one image sensor might have more pixels per mm but those pixels being so small introduce complications compared to another sensor with larger individual pixels that actually makes a higher apparent magnification image because you can resolve finer details. We are working on the next version of our website which will have comparable images from different digital microscopes so that you can make a 1 to 1 comparison with a standardized sample.
@@micro_safari man, I'm just happy I watched this video before finishing my check-out and paying over 60 dollars just in shipping for one of these. As I understand it they could have used 1x actual zoom and still advertised it as 1600x by connecting it to an awesome projector! xD
@@micro_safari Maybe a way around this is to test it against a standardised test pattern to measure how much fine detail can be resolved in each case. Sort of an eye exam for microscopes; such things are already a feature for some online reviews of photographic equipment. You can have can some insane magnification numbers depending on the eyepiece/sensor/screen/digital zoom you use, but it's all "empty magnification" unless the objective lens can deliver the goods. It's been frustrating for me trying to shop for a digital microscope because I've used a light microscope up to 1000x (with oil immersion) before. Whatever those digital microscopes are claiming, it does not look anything close to 1000x at all. PS: I'm shopping for a digital microscope to check on some knives I'm sharpening and maybe take some pictures of it, and I have a rough idea of how many microns I want to be able to see. A loupe did not appeal to me for reasons far outside the scope of this video's topic so I won't get into that. I look forward to your comparison site.
Bullcrap meter 😆
خلاص علبانا عندك ميكروسكوب جاي تقارن 15دولار معا 1000000دولار
beam of 'P' - LMAO 😂 Thanks for sharing the truth. and yet humans mislead humans to achieve what exactly?
my mom: why is your ipad screen broken me: well i demolished it my mom: what do you mean me: i demolished the like button🤣
1 min enough life is short
You can’t afford an another $20 microscope to break so we could see the insides? Come on.
So far I've made $11 from KZhead ads on this video. Venmo me $9 and I'll do it ;)
It is understood that some chinese electronics are not rated correctly as with this usb microscope, just purchased one, the cheapest one just to get my hand on it, it doesn't run on my laptop because of missing dll's, I instead connected it to a smart phone, it worked. You are correct with your review of it. Thanks.
Yes it is a "lie" a lie that is 1000 x cheaper thet the zeiss
Yes it is a lie, I would have liked to see the video before using it, now I have a garbage microscope
Had to watch seven minutes to find out that the answer to the initial question is exactly as I thought. We concur, Houston.
My goal is to my videos as satisfying as possible. To clarify, would it have been better if I made the video shorter and more succinct, or did you find the information along the way helpful? Thank you!
@@micro_safari There's nothing wrong with being informative. I guess it is the subject line that offended my sensibilities. On the other hand, I really do understand the need to have a subject line that attracts attention, while not being misleading. So, I guess I was feeling crabby 8-days ago. After all, this is KZhead and click-bait subject lines are the norm.
@@Vector_Ze All good! It's annoying to me too that I feel forced into using sensationalized titles. I think the meta is changing though. We are seeing a shift towards simpler thumbnails and I hope titles go the same direction as well.
@@micro_safari no way dude! I absolutely loved how long this video was it was really informative to a potential new and unaware microscope enthusiast like me. You have a gift, only a true teacher blessed with the gift of teaching can take a small simple question and turn it into a long video that covers multiple parts of the equation (that I didn't even consider) give real world examples of how you figured it out (which makes it relatable and easy to understand, not just looking at a picture of a graph you found online, but realistic experiments that i can feasibly replicate without huge investments) and then still answers the initial question with no crazy annoying music. This video was perfect the way it was and I actually wish it was longer. You will do great things on KZhead!
@@pharaohsmagician8329 Aww thank you! I appreciate the feedback. I'll implement your thoughts in future videos. In our newest video about the microplastics we found in an ancient cave, do you think the music was too loud/do you think it would have been better w/o the music? Thanks!
Te has gastado más de que, 2000€ 3000€ nose no idea, pero al final te has dado cuenta que con uno de 20€ haces exactamente lo mismo... Continúa con tus vídeos de KZhead 😀😀😀
Beampee