...but as any explorer knows the technical accuracy of Frontier's galaxy simulation outweighs the aesthetics (i.e. beige planets)...
That certainly isn't the case with most of the nebulae in the game. The way the galactic interstellar dust is shown is rather unrealistic looking as well.
Also, the "eye" picture isn't really how the night sky looks either. It's actually closer to the "camera" picture, just with less colors on the horizon (assuming you're nowhere near a city, of course, or you likely wouldn't be seeing much of the Milky Way anyway) and a bit darker. But then, I have better low light vision than most, at least compared to my wife, so I'll let others speak for themselves. She's effectively blind where I can still see and navigated the ground and terrain at night. Closer to cities where there is a bit more ambient light or if the moon is up, I've even walked forest trails under tree canopies at night (without the need for a flashlight, of course) and have read books by moonlight.
Either way, the sky in the "eye" version is way off in terms of color (it, unlike the real sky and stars within it, doesn't have any – most of the more often visible stars look a little blue tinted and some a little yellow or orange) and to an extent clarity as well compared to seeing the real thing, for me.
Basically, if you take the eye picture in terms of brightness and add in a bit of the color variety and clarity of the camera picture, minus the teal horizon smog glow (or whatever that is – there's too much of it in the "eye" picture as well, just without color), this is closer to what I see. The camera and/or file formatting looks like it has rather poor range of brightness as well, being rather washed out and flat looking. Also, looking at the "eye" camera picture on the left, the stars look more the same in terms of brightness levels compared to what the real night sky looks like where there is much more visible range of brightness between different stars.
.