What are your concerns about the images? "are they photoshopped?" doesn't mean a thing to me, as I sell a lot of stuff online and every shot I use is "photoshopped", I will tweak the contrast, maybe lift the shadows etc., to show the detail better. I don't do anything that will misrepresent the item though. Without knowing what you think you are seeing that is dodgy, it is hard to answer your question.
What is the purpose of the second image though? Has it been included to show that he is in possession of the camera, by taking a shot of it with his ID in front of it? If so, I would be a bit concerned but not because of any photoshopping.
Are those supposed to be the same camera in the shots? One has a strap on and the other doesn't. Straps can be removed of course, but that isn't a quick release strap and is a fiddly job to take off and put back on again. It isn't something most people would bother with. They are also shot in different places (or at the very least on two different objects).
I've just noticed that the first one also shows a slip of paper with his name on it and a date. Is it that that concerns you about being possibly photoshopped in? The shadow doesn't look quite right on the paper, it appears the light is nearer the camera, but that could well be that the paper is so low to the table that the angle on the corner just isn't big enough to clearly show in the shadow. It does look more like the paper is lit from a light straight on to the front of the camera though, whereas the camera is lit from the left. It could still be a match for the paler shadow on the camera though, like I say the shadow is so straight and narrow it is hard to calculate the angle with just the one corner to go off. It may or may not be "wrong". One other thing I would think about is why has he bothered to write his name out twice, once with a date and once without, on two pieces of paper? Why not just write it once and include the same piece in both shots.
I cannot make a real conclusion as to whether the paper is photoshopped into the first image, it is hard to tell from that shadow. There may also be a very good reason to have taken the shots at different times, did you ask for an updated image showing the camera and the date? That could easily explain why they are shot on different surfaces, with different paper tags, and he may have taken the strap off in the meantime as he intended to keep it, which would explain why it is missing in the second shot.
Whenever I have sold an item, I have always taken all necessary pictures in one go, so they would match up. I would say that it raises a warning flag to have such different images used in an advert or auction. However, if you have asked for a further image that explains it satisfactorily, if he had to shoot another one specially.
This may very well be perfectly legitimate. I see a couple of potential warning flags but I would need to view those in relation to everything else in the background story if it was me buying. The original advert or listing, checking out the seller, knowing the messages passed between both parties, etc., would all be part of my decision making process.
You have my thoughts on the evidence shown, but it is only a small part of the evidence you have to go on. You need to make a decision based on all the information you have.