It's the same tense (present) – it's that (apart from 'tha') there isn't a non-progressive form for the present tense in Gaelic.
I think accepting both is fine, but I reckon the main translation should be the more natural one. I've seen a few people remark on this now and it seems to be a bit confusing.
Just by way of feedback though, not a moan.
By different tense I meant grammatical tense - present simple and present continuous. And don't worry, the feedback is very much appreciated :)
But yeah, I realised recently I see is obviously the correct way of translating it in this case - it's a stative verb. My head's in a bit of a bùrach at the moment.
I would say it is pronounced "uh f-aye-ch--keen" where "aye" is pronounced like the letter I, and "ch" is like in "bach", also "f-aye-ch" is one syllable and "keen" is another but the transition between them is pretty smooth
If anyone has a better way of explaining it please do so
I don't know if it's less common in British English, but in the right context, American English speakers certainly would use the present progressive here.
Say a group of people is looking across a field. Someone exclaims "hey, there's a lamb out there!" You scan the area; you don't see it, so you say "I'm not seeing a lamb."
Note that present progressive makes sense here: you are still looking, and you continue not to see it.
Ok, I finally understand what people mean when they say it is a natural sentence, but I don't think it's very common. I personally think it's good they translate it as "I am not seeing" because it shows you how the sentence works (why there is a "tha/chan eil" in there, etc.)