Oil paintings leave ridges or brush marks on the canvas. Without seeing this painting/photograph in person, there is no way to determine which it might be.
Ah, hyperrealism… Paintings that are sometimes more real than reality itself. They are usually monumental in scale, which makes them appear so realistic on small computer monuments. They are typically painted with a very good eye for light and value and very small brushes.
Depends on how big the original picture is. If you scale things down, they tend to look a lot better than in their original size. Personally, I looks more like a rendering than a photograph. It is too clean to be a photo.
Also, there are mistakes in the reflection on the ground surface, that make me conclude it is neither a photo nor a rendering.
Many Super-realists or Photorealists working in oil can achieve a result this fine—see this sample work by Richard Estes. or this by Ralph Goings. This was a significant art movement in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
It is merely a matter of fine detail and fine smooth brushwork often on a substrate that is also often smooth. As pointed out above, the paintings of small objects are generally on a much larger scale than the objects themselves.
Attempting to fool the eye [trompe-l’oeil] with fine precise painting by far precedes photography. This 17th century still life by Cornelius Gjisbrechts has similar detail but doesn’t startle us as much because the subject matter is old-fashioned
Pedro Campos is a well known hyper photorealistic artist working in oil on canvas. It’s stunning work, and beautiful, but one has to wonder why bother when you could do it with a camera so much quicker. If I had that level of skill, I’d use it to paint things that look like reality, but would be utterly impossible in the real world—things like Escher’s works, that couldn’t possibly be done with a camera..