A man can devote his entire life to studying a rare species of moss, he eats, he drinks, perhaps he even has a wife and friends, but his obsession is to fully grasp, from every angle, and level the history, impact, and features specific to this rare species of moss, from macro-ecology to coevolotion, to its physiology, chemistry and even to the bryophyte's physics.
This man's not only a hardcore botanist, but he specializes in mosses and he is an expert, in fact the only expert on this one rare species of moss.
He writes scientific articles, conducts various studies all for the better and fuller understanding of this rare species of moss.
Now, the question is...
Is this hypothetical man deep?
Um, define deep please?
Does he deeply know and understand the moss in which he devoted his life to study, most likely, hell yes.
But is he deep?
I, for one, think that one can find a universal thread woven into each delineated "thing" within the the universe, in other words, study mice, study pens, study studying, study projectal geometry, study fine art, doesn't matter, one can find meaning, and through whatever subject one studies one can see the pattern of life and nature woven into it.
My point is this.
Generalist, specialist, heterarchy, hierarchy, there is no better or worse, a specialist is NOT deeper than a generalist, nope, they just focus their energy more or less on one thing whereas a generalist will have multiple focuses, and who's to say that the generalist's focuses don't actually have a meta-focus under which all his/her focuses lie.
The setting of your lens is unimportant, if you prefer things at a more microscopic scale, then so be it, but don't hate on those who prefer to view things in a more macroscopic way. The only thing to judge is how accurate you perceive the things you see with your lens.
And by accuracy I mean how objectively true your observations can be.