I second that. It is a travesty only as long as the sheep dole out more money without demanding substantive changes from the camera maker. In this day and age there is no reason why we talk about "fps" in the 10's when this bottle neck is introduced primarily by the shutter/mirror mechanics and of course the speed at which the chips and the system are able to process and record the images falling on the sensor. Computers and chips evolve continually and very fast. As I see it...the primary hurdle is to break the strangle hold mirror boxes have over the community... but that will reduce the flimsy super-duper number the companies use to bait us with..8.9 fps!!! (Oh my god, you wet your panties!) ...the new cam is 9.2 fps...(OH My god!!! I need stronger Depends)...
Mirrorless full frames are the future, when this will happen... depends on the number of sheep... baaahhh!
Lets see what happens to the current MP leader, the d800:
It shares the same mirrorbox/shutter with D4 (11fps).
In this case if mirrorbox was at full speed you would have to move approximately:
74.4MB x 11 = 818MB/s or 6.55Gbit/s to the processor and then
41.3MB x 11 = 462MB/s or 3.7Gbit/s throughput to the storage.
Even if you could load the camera with serious ram and processor you would hit into power efficiency and thermal/interference issues which with the current technology would probably require also a complete redesign of the dslr form.
So in this case everything else in the chain is the bottleneck in getting the full mirror potential
Assuming that mirror/shutter would peak at around 10-14fps, data throughput & cpu intensive tasks (such as a move to 16bit files, lens correction, deconvolution sharpening etc) will balance out the advancements in tech for the near future.
Apart from that, evf vs ovf although promising still has a long way to go & i'd rather see fully fledged HUD implementations in the next slr generation than laggy dr-limited noisy evfs
All in all i would be confident buying slrs for the next decade!