The first priority would be to try to develop a way to detect smaller amounts. It is nothing but antiscience to desire ignorance.
I think a series of lenses could be used to disperse light into smaller amounts, but I'm not sure how one would go about detecting them. That part, at least, should be fairly inexpensive. Lenses are cheap.
You seem to be under the impression that our evidence for quanta is just that our instruments can't detect anything less than a certain amount. This is incorrect. Let me outline two experiments that give much better reasons for believing in quanta:
1. The Photoelectric Effect
It has long been known that shining light on a sheet of metal will eject electrons. The energy from the light excites the electrons so that they can escape from their orbitals and go flying off into some detector. What happens if light it continuous (not quantized) as you seem to believe? A beam of light has two components: frequency (which manifests as color) and intensity (which manifests as brightness). An increase in either component leads to an increase in overall energy flux, so you might expect that as one cranks up frequency and/or intensity, the rate of electron ejection should also increase. The more energy being supplied, the more quickly a given electron can soak up enough energy to escape, right?
Wrong. While an increase in intensity does lead to a roughly linear increase in electron ejection, frequency does something far stranger. Most of the time, adjusting frequency up and down has no effect on the rate of electron ejection. When frequency drops below some well-defined value, though, the photoelectric effect stops altogether. No matter how bright your light is and how long you shine it on a sheet of metal, the metal will not eject a single electron if the frequency is below a certain threshold. From a non-quantized view of light, this makes no sense. Quantum mechanics, though, readily explain it: each photon has a frequency which is proportional to its energy, and the intensity of light just describes how many photons are zipping by per unit time. Changing the intensity changes the number of electrons ejected per unit time, since more photons means more chances for any given electron to absorb a photon and escape. Frequency obeys a more off/on relation, since any given photon either will or won't have enough energy to eject an electron that absorbs it. (At higher frequencies, the electrons are ejected at higher speeds, which lends credence to the idea that they're being knocked out of the metal by higher energy photons.)
If you've done any reading at all on the experimental basis for quantum mechanics, you've probably seen the double-slit experiment. You shine light through two slits onto photosensitive film, and instead of forming two lines on the film, the light forms a whole series of vertical bars. This occurs because the light from one slit interferes with light from the other slit and produces a more complex "interference pattern" on the other side.
Of course, this doesn't show that light is quantized. The interesting part occurs when you turn the intensity of the beam way, way down. If light were not quantized, you would probably expect the film to develop very slowly, but evenly; the continuous light being beamed through the slits would slowly but surely produce an image that didn't change from start to end of development. This isn't what happens. Instead, tiny dots appear abruptly and at random all over the film. These dots keep appearing and adding up until eventually there are so many dots that they blur together, producing the image of a series of bars. As you turn down the intensity, these dots appear more and more slowly, but they don't diminish in brightness. This indicates that little quanta of light are hitting the film one at a time, as opposed to a homogeneous "bath" of light washing over the whole film at once and gradually creating the picture.
If this is still unconvincing, note that you can do the same thing with electrons. Chemists have known for a very long time that electrons are quantized; you hear about 1+, 2+, 1-, etc. ions, but you never hear about fractional ionizations. If particles are indeed different from waves, electrons should just fly through the two slits and produce two bars on the film. However, when the experiment is actually performed, the electrons produce a series of bars, just like the photons did. Even if the electron beam is slowed to the point that only one electron is going through the slits, the film eventually develops to a series-of-bars image. There is no purely particle-based explanation for this; the electrons must be in some sense wavelike because they are interfering with themselves to produce this pattern. Both the photon and electron versions of the experiment demonstrate simultaneous wave and particle aspects of a single thing, so both demonstrate the core idea of quantum mechanics.