[Balgair]

I'll echo this too. Instrumentation is field specific. I was in bioeng, but my work was photo-chem/physics and optics. Basically, building novel nanoscopes.

Pro-Tip: Want a 'quick' nobel? Do optics for ~3/4 years. Then never touch it again. Making new kinds of microscopes is crazy useful and high impact, but you either get lucky or you waste 45 years in a lab. Try it out for a bit, throw a few on red, then walk away from the table.

[cushychicken]

Optical sensors are a potential goldmine, I agree! The electronics are relatively straightforward to implement and the upside is potentially enormous. All you have to do then is find someone who needs your sensor tech! (Admittedly easier said than done. XD)

[Balgair]

Thanks, but I think you may have misunderstood me. I meant actual optics.

I agree that better sensor tech is also very useful. It is the end of the line for the optical path, after all. Any way you can get photons picked up better is great!

But the actual optics, the mirrors, the lenses, the fibers, the filters, the E-O waves, etc. That's where all the jazz is. I'm not kidding when I say it's an easy nobel. STED was just putting the right filter in the right place. DIC was just using a 1/4 plate just off the focus. PALM/STORM is just using a specific dye and a fast lamp. Blue LEDS are just a bit of chem. Optogenetics is just the right slime out of just the right pool.

Now, all those things built up on a LOT of other work, but it's not terribly difficult stuff to do. The processes are very straightforward. I mean Hell built STED in his living room out of cardboard boxes, literally.

But, you can also toil away on these projects for decades, tweaking this, isolating that.

Optics is absurdly touchy.