There were a nesting pair of Bald Eagles at a nearby lake last year and I managed to get this shot of their one and only offspring from a boat. D500, Nikon 2-500 Lens, 1/2500th, f/7.1, ISO 6400, 500mm, hand held, AI Clear, cropped to 2584 x 2853
Hi Dave: I like the pensive pose of this juvenile. The green branch the bird is on is a nice location for the bird. Not quite sure why ISO 6400 to get 1/2500. Even at ISO 1600, the shutter would have been 1/640 which was plenty to capture this subject. I see a pretty substantial green cast to the image. Hereâs a quick update to correct the cast based on a blur/average layer in PS.
Very nice, Dave. The pose works with the steep angle and the eye pops extremely well for a juvenile Bald Eagle. Plumage detail is very good.In an ideal world, Iâd prefer not to have the brighter background above the bird, but it doesnât seem to be very distracting, so I donât think itâs worth trying to fix in post processing.
Keith
I almost always keep my camera set for auto ISO which I had on here. I usually only adjust the SS. I had it set here for 1/2500th. I double checked these posted settings, and ya know Nikons donât lie 
Frankly, I just tend to blast away only thinking of resetting the SS for either static poses or BIF. I think I was locked and loaded at 1/2500th anticipating it flying here. It continues to be very valuable to me to get input from you guys. 'Preciate ya!
We have a LOT of bald eagles around our house here in Alaska, and theyâre common around our house in Florida. Call it over 40 years of almost daily viewing and no small amount of photography.
The net result of that is knowing the critters pretty well. If I had to find a single adjective for the juveniles, it would be âscruffy.â Theyâre seldom at their best image-wise compared to the iconic adults.
Saying all that, youâve managed one of the best juvenile images Iâve seen. The pose, detail, exposure and background are terrific. It doesnât look the least bit scruffy! 
Gotta comment on your Nikon 200-500mm lens. In our experience with 2 of them in the house, and the detailed evidence in your photo, I have to say itâs one of the best buys in Lens World. Incredibly sharp, yet comparatively compact and âcheap.â Shooting alongside my Nikon 500 f/4, itâs hard to distinguish images from the two. Yet it brings to the field the HUGE advantage of framing options compared to the limitations of heavier fixed focal length lenses costing something like 10X more.
Hank
Talk about a scruffy juvenile, this is the same one I shot in the tree only earlier. This was after it âaugered inâ clumsily going for a fish out in the middle of our lake and had to swim for it to get to dry land. It was a long, exhausting swim which wore it out and thoroughly waterlogged it. A kayaker pal of mine happened to witness it and called me to come down and shoot it while it was drying out which I did. It hung out for over 4 hours before flying. Now THATâS scruffy, aye? On the subject of my 2-500 lens. When I was researching which âwildlife lensâ to purchase I read that the D500 with the 2-500 lens was the best combo for the purpose at the time. I do NOT regret the purchase at all.
Oh yeah! Thatâs more like the juvies I know and love! 
BTW- On the subject of the 200-500, if you havenât tried the recommended 1.4x converter with it, do so at the first opportunity. Other than the stop of light loss (not an issue with todayâs ISO quality), thereâs really no downside for us. Between the 1.4x and the 1.5x DX crop factor claimed by Nikon, your 500 is pushed up to an effective 1050mm. That comes in pretty handy at times!
Yes. I rented one to see if I was gonna like it. I did, and gagged up the money to buy it. Havenât looked back. It stays on except every great once in a while I need to take it off for subjects (like a flock of turkeys in the backyard⌠close). How did I live without it??
