You don't buy what exactly? This is just science on how eyes work and some of the interesting things that happen, the author isn't being prescriptive about what eyes are for or how they should be used. I think what you said is entirely consistent with the Twitter thread.
I mean, I don't think the point is that cameras a better overall (apart from the advantages mentioned above, our eyes still have a ridiculously good dynamic range compared to cameras), just that if you want a predictable mapping from stimulus to result, our vision system (which is eyes + visual cortex) has a ton of quirks and biases which affect perception in ways which are really non-obvious and can really obscure what's actually happening (hence 'insane'), while cameras are far more predictable and regular, which can matter if you want to be precise about what's going on.
