Sight is great and unrivaled at what it does. But it does not make pictures, nor does it efficiently collect data. There is no such thing as a biological equivalent of a camera, nor is there much relevance into wondering how well the eye without the brain would perform at catching visual data.

What we see is the result of complex processes and cognitive biases that trick us into believing we see sharpness everywhere, or something that is not there, or something that has not happened yet, or something that lasts a different duration than what we perceive, and the brain even fabricates data where it seems it would be relevant. The result is brilliant and admittedly astonishing, we feel that we can see pictures, motion, even perspectives at the best possible standard, we can focus and move the field amazingly fast, all from something that is full of flaws and costly trade-offs, and probably mushier than a glass of water. Fortunately the brain adds in its own flaws to compensate for them and make us believe they either don't exist, or are perks. However, it is mostly a fabricated illusion that happens to be perfectly decent and look legit based on what the eyes could collect and how persuasive the brain can be. Whatever objective signal is collected at the beginning is far more heavily processed when we actually "see" it than a raw image translated into a lossy format.

The result is great, but I don't believe it would be right to consider the eye alone an objective sensor to collect visual information, let alone a standard. And putting a CPU next to a digital sensor won't help forging extra data and convincing the user that the data is real when it is not. By contrast, the magic thing with the brain is what it does is never debated by the owner of the said brain; that's a big difference.