It would be interesting if the thing wrong with the "eyes are just cameras" logic was the subtle differences. Like how retinas are not flat, but concave or the way our eyes continuously reposition to fill in gaps in our vision. Such differences seem incidental or compensatory, but it's not impossible that our brain is able to make better distance/position judgements because of them.
The other missing piece is just how good the brain is at object recognition and persistence. A huge advantage when you have a 2d image and you need to gauge distance (at least partially) by size or when you need to avoid a moving obstacle by predicting its trajectory.
Your eyes 100% do several other things to give depth cues to your brain. That's why you can cover one eye and still judge depth pretty well. In fact, maybe two eyeballs really are all you need to do safe driving, but 2 CCD image sensors are NOT an adequate replacement for all the other things eyeballs give you.
Your eyes know the distance of something because they know how they had to move to bring the object into focus. Your eyes also have to be at slightly different angles to look at a distant object, which also is a depth cue, as well as all the temporal depth info you get simply as a byproduct of having an insanely powerful and robust object classification and world simulation engine in your skull.
The other missing piece is just how good the brain is at object recognition and persistence. A huge advantage when you have a 2d image and you need to gauge distance (at least partially) by size or when you need to avoid a moving obstacle by predicting its trajectory.