Kino-Eye vs. Human Eye

Dziga Vertov proposes a different way of comparing the kino-eye (camera) and the human eye.  He provokes the ideas that the eye of the camera and the human eye are distinctly different but in ways that I do not agree with.  He claims the kino-eye is superior to the human eye because it can be perfected, altered, and does not elicit an opportunity for biases.

"We cannot improve the making or our eyes, but we can endlessly perfect the camera"

I do not agree with his statement at all.
First, the camera cannot be perfected endlessly.  You will reach a point where the shutter speed cannot be faster, the exposure will no longer go higher, and the lens cannot extend further - the camera can be perfected to a point. 
Second,  the camera will still create biases like the human eye.  No not the camera itself is bias, but the person looking through the restricted kino-eye can still see something completely different than another person looking at the exact same scene through the lens.  And the picture the camera produces can still be interpreted differently by different people because one person may see something completely different than another even though they are both looking at the exact same image.
Third, the human eye can be enhanced just like the kino-eye thanks to the evolution of contacts, spectacles, and glasses. Both 'eyes' can be enhanced and altered due to technology.

To me, the human eye will forever be superior to the kino-eye because the human eye can capture a moment in 3D and connect that moment with other sensors like smell, taste, touch, emotions, etc.  The camera will forever chase the abilities that the human eye has.  The human eye will forever be faster, smarter, more advanced, not man-made, and an object the camera will forever strive to be, but never achieve.