The first thing that occurs to me is that videos are a pretty gruesome medium for explaining most things.
The second is that making videos is a fourth skill, after (1) being able to think clearly (2) able take pictures and (3) being able to write about/ write a script about what you've just been testing.
The third is that the pictures for reviews are necessarily illustrations, to show people some of the things the camera or lens can do, and with any luck to inspire the reader to try it. Combining illustration and fine art is next to impossible.
Fourth, you rarely have long to review a camera or lens, at least if you are doing it commercially, because the publisher wants the review as soon as the kit is available. In other words, you have to learn to use it; sum up its good and bad points; illustrate those points; and write them up, all under time pressure.
Fifth, no-one in their right mind is going to use untested and unknown kit for anything very important. For that, you'll use the kit you like and are familiar with. Good pictures will therefore be something of a matter of chance, as compared with the stuff you shoot the rest of the year.
I very rarely review kit in magazines any more, not least because there are fewer and fewer magazines. Those who review kit properly, such as Amateur Photographer, have facilities that few if any freelance reviewers can muster. Technical reviews are valuable, but the sort I normally did were aimed more at explaining who might like a particular camera, and why.
Having said all this, I realize I am setting myself up for criticism, but I think that some of the pictures in the following reviews really aren't too bad:
Leica M9 --
Leica M8 --
Zeiss 4/18 Distagon
Cheers,
R.
